Skip to main content

Full text of "Airport zoning"

See other formats




HHHH 







1 I B R:-AR:Y- 

OF THE 
U N'lVERSITY 
Of ILLINOIS 

629-13 
no.\-\0 



Return this book on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. 

University of Illinois Library 



I 1 



*"*5«W6 



- 7 iasa 



OCT -4 

AUG 5§ 



AUG 2 



2"< B53 



14 



0CT2- 



ND'J 3 C 1364 



: i 



APR 2 



975 
WW 

9 1980 



964 AP H ° 8 1982 



Tl 



MAR 



itt 



2 8 1985 



L161— H41 



OX.*?. 1 9 

n o- 4- 

AERONAUTICS BULLETIN : NUMBER FOUR 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

THE INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS 

URBANA, ILLINOIS 



AIRPORT 
ZONING 



By J. Nelson Young 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BULLETIN 

VOLUME 46; NUMBER 29; DECEMBER, 1948. Published seven times each month by the University of Illinois. 
Entered at second-class matter December 11, 1912, at the post office at Urbana, Illinois, under the Act of 
August 24, 1912. Office of Publication, 358 Administration Building, Urbana, Illinois. 



THE INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS, established in 1945, is operated as the 
administrative agency responsible for the fostering and correlation of 
the educational and research activities related to aviation in all parts of the 
University. Other functions include academic instruction, flight training, 
management of the University of Illinois Airport, and aeronautical research. 
In connection with the latter function, the Institute issues two types of 
publications . . . first, a group of reports on research results, and second, 
a series of bulletins on aviation subjects of an extension service nature to 
the citizens of the State. 

The following publications have been issued: 
Bulletin One: Municipal Airport Management, 
Leslie A. Bryan, 1947. 

Bulletin Two: Landscape Planting for Airports, 
Florence B. Robinson, 1948. 

Bulletin Three: Labor Relations in the Air Transport Industry 
Under the Amended Railway Labor Act, 
E. B. McNatt, 1948. 

Bulletin Four: Airport Zoning, J. Nelson Young, 1948. 

Publications of the Institute of Aeronautics will be sent free of charge 
upon request. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
THE INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS 

Leslie A. Bryan, Ph.D., LL.B., Director 
Bernice Schrader, A.M., Editor 



AIRPORT 
ZONING 



By J. Nelson Young 

Assistant Professor of Law 

College of Law, University of Illinois 



THE LIBRARY OF THE 

DEC 2 3 1948 

. o; ; i 



Published by the University of Illinois, Urbana 

1948 



FOREWORD 

THIS MONOGRAPH is the fourth in a series of bulletins on avia- 
tion subjects which will be issued from time to time by our Institute 
of Aeronautics. Like some of our other bulletins, it represents a pio- 
neering venture into a subject of considerable current interest. It is 
particularly timely as the trend to municipal ownership and operation 
of airports continues and the need for airport zoning is becoming more 
and more apparent. 

Professor J. Nelson Young, the author, is exceptionally well quali- 
fied to write this bulletin. He is a member of the Illinois Bar, as well 
as a Certified Public Accountant. The Institute of Aeronautics is grate- 
ful to Dean A. J. Harno for his interest and help in making Professor 
Young, a member of the University of Illinois Law Faculty, available 
to carry on this study. 

Professor Young wishes to acknowledge the cooperation of the 
following individuals who furnished materials, information, and sug- 
gestions which proved invaluable in the preparation of this monograph: 

Robert P. Boyle, Acting General Counsel, and Edgar N. Smith, 
Acting Assistant Administrator for Airports, both of the Civil Aero- 
nautics Administration, Washington, D. C. 

G. Richard Challinor, Aviation Commissioner, Chamber of Com- 
merce, Kansas City, Missouri. 

Joshua H. Vogel, Planning and Public Works Consultant, Associa- 
tion of Washington Cities, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash- 
ington. 

Hugh J. Dobbs, General Attorney, Springfield Airport Authority, 
Springfield, Illinois. 

Charles S. Rhyne, General Counsel, National Institute of Municipal 
Law Officers, Washington, D. C. 

Ray Nyemaster, Attorney at Law, Des Moines, Iowa. 

E. T. Lynch, Senior Civil Engineer, Bureau of Aviation, Depart- 
ment of Commerce, State of New York, Albany, New York. 

Donald E. Blodgett, Assistant Director, Department of Aeronautics. 
State of Illinois, Capital Airport, Springfield, Illinois. 

John W. Reps, Executive Secretary, Broome County Planning 
Board, Binghamton, New York. 

Frederick N. MacMillin, Executive Secretary, League of Wiscon- 
sin Municipalities, Madison, Wisconsin. 

E. A. Wilson, Executive Secretary, City Planning and Zoning Com- 
mission, Tucson, Arizona. 



13 

X 
i 

C. C. Ludwig, Executive Secretary, League of Minnesota Munici- 
palities, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

In addition, the author is indebted to a host of others who have 
written upon the various facets of this subject. 

The Institute of Aeronautics is glad to make available the infor- 
mation contained in Professor Young's monograph. In it, as in all 
publications of the Institute, the author has been given complete free- 
dom to express any opinions he may wish with the understanding 

that he takes sole responsibility- therefor. T . T1 

Leslie A. Bryan 

1A , n Director 

December, 1948 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/airportzoning04youn 



OUTLINE OF CONTENTS 

Topic Page 

Introduction 7 

Zoning as a governmental function 7 

Legal background of zoning 7 

Comprehensive zoning 9 

Airport Zoning 12 

What is airport zoning? 12 

Need for airport zoning 12 

Obstructions to airport approaches 13 

Failure to eliminate obstructions 14 

Alternative methods of regulating obstructions . . . . 15 

Validity of airport zoning 17 

Airport Zoning Legislation 21 

Need for legislation 21 

Adoption of enabling statutes 21 

Problems requiring legislative treatment 22 

Airport Zoning Ordinances 29 

Adoption of airport zoning ordinances 29 

Preparing an airport zoning ordinance 29 

Provisions of airport zoning ordinances 33 

Composite model ordinance 40 

Creating a joint airport zoning board . 40 

Airport Zoning and Regional Planning 41 

Need for zoning airport locations 41 

Airport zoning for the future 43 

Appendixes 46 



LIST OF APPENDIXES 

Topic Page 

Appendix I: Model State Airport Zoning Act 46 

Appendix II: Current Enabling Statutes for Airport Zoning .... 54 

Appendix III: Model Airport Zoning Ordinance 55 

Appendix IV: Zoning Map of Boeing Field Airport 59 

Appendix V: CAA Airport Approach Standards 59 

Appendix VI: Zones and Height Limitations; Minnesota Model Airport 

Zoning Ordinance 60 

Appendix VII: Zones and Height Limitations; New York Model Airport 

Zoning Ordinance 61 

Appendix VIII: Zones and Height Limitations; Proposed Tucson Munici- 
pal Airport No. 2 Ordinance 62 

Appendix IX: Composite Model Airport Zoning Ordinance .... 63 

Appendix X: Proposed Ordinance for Use by Minnesota Municipalities 

in Creating a Joint Airport Zoning Board 70 

Appendix XI : Municipal Airport Outside City Limits; Request to County 

Board to Adopt Airport Zoning Regulations 72 

Appendix XII: References 73 



INTRODUCTION 

Zoning as a governmental function. Zoning as an essential func- 
tion of local government has been a relatively recent development in 
the United States. Only within the past twenty-five years has the word 
"zoning" become a term of common usage. Its development has been 
an evolutionary process. Although it was not so identified at the time, 
zoning in its initial stages was directed toward the restriction or elimi- 
nation of so-called nuisance activities, such as the operation of laun- 
dries, livery stables, slaughterhouses, and brickyards. From this 
limited beginning, zoning has expanded to encompass the comprehen- 
sive and systematic planning and control of all land uses within entire 
urban areas. It has now received universal acceptance. Few munici- 
palities of any appreciable size have failed to adopt general zoning 
ordinances regulating land uses throughout their territorial limits. 
More recently, zoning has been authorized in rural as well as urban 
areas in response to the need for regional planning. 

Legal background of zoning. The constitutional validity of 
comprehensive zoning is founded upon the police power of the state. 
This is the power, expansive in scope, which permits the state to adopt 
regulations which are essential to the promotion and protection of the 
public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. But the 
police power should not be accorded exclusive credit for this accom- 
plishment within the constitutional framework of our government. The 
validity of comprehensive zoning is the end-product of the operation 
of the common law rules of nuisance in conjunction with the police 
power. The latter is invariably stated by the courts as the basis for 
the validity of zoning regulations. The former, however, have per- 
suasively influenced the courts in extending the police power to validate 
comprehensive zoning ordinances regulating and controlling land uses. 

The common law principles of nuisance first recognized that one's 
right to use his property as he might see fit was not absolute. The 
common law imposes upon one the condition that he use his land in a 
manner that does not interfere with his neighbor's reasonable use of ad- 
joining property. One may not by the use of his land impair the 
health or safety or unreasonably offend the senses of his neighbor. 
A landowner may not operate a chemical plant on his property which 
will produce fumes that jeopardize his neighbor's health; nor may he 
conduct operations producing noise or odors so offensive as to make 
it wholly undesirable to occupy the areas adjacent to his property. In 
these circumstances the common law rules of nuisance give an indi- 



O AIRPORT ZONING 

vidual protection against another's improper use of property. If an 
offensive activity creates an annoyance to the whole community in 
general, it constitutes a public nuisance by common law principles; and 
the offensive use may be suppressed by the state or local governmental 
authorities in the exercise of the police power. 

The state and its political subdivisions enjoy an even greater right, 
however, to restrict one in the use of his property for the protection 
and benefit of the whole community. Under the police power, a re- 
stricted use need not be improper in the sense required by common law 
principles of nuisance; that is, it need not be an activity which could 
be presently abated as a public nuisance. A state or political subdivision 
may declare that under certain circumstances an activity shall be a 
nuisance though it is not in itself a nuisance by common law stand- 
ards. Regulations of this nature are valid if there is a reasonable basis 
for the determination of the legislative body so that its action may not 
be deemed arbitrary. Furthermore, the police power may be exercised 
in this manner without providing compensation for the property owner 
upon whom the restriction is imposed. This is justified on the ground 
that the particular restriction constitutes a reasonable regulation of the 
use of property and not an actual taking of the owner's property by 
the state. 

A notable example of the early exercise of the police power in this 
manner, which foreshadowed its subsequent extension to the area of 
comprehensive zoning, occurred in Los Angeles. In 1910 the city 
adopted an ordinance which prohibited the operation of brickyards 
within certain described residential areas. The owner of a brickyard 
had acquired his property in 1902 before the area had been annexed 
to the city. His brickyard had been established with necessary build- 
ings, machinery, and kilns, and had been in operation for seven years. 
As a brickyard it had an alleged value of $800,000 as compared to 
$60,000 for residential purposes. Yet the community interest in free- 
dom from the fumes, gases, smoke, soot, steam, and dust produced by 
the brickyard operations was deemed sufficient to permit the city to 
prohibit operation of the brickyard in a residential area without com- 
pensating the owner for the consequent reduction in the value of his 
property. In upholding this restriction upon one's use of his land, the 
United States Supreme Court granted that the operation of a brick- 
yard is not a nuisance per se. It proceeded to hold, however, that it 
was proper, under the police power, for the legislative body of the city 
to declare or decide that a brickyard shall be deemed a nuisance in fact 
and in law in particular circumstances and in particular localities. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS V 

Another early exercise of the police power bears upon the subse- 
quent validation of comprehensive zoning ordinances and the current 
problem regarding the validity of airport zoning. These were statutes 
and ordinances regulating the height of buildings. A statute of 1904, 
for example, divided the city of Boston into two districts: one con- 
sisting of the commercial area, and the other, the residential area. 
In the former, no building could be erected at a height exceeding one 
hundred and twenty-five feet above the grade of the street; in the 
latter, no building could exceed eighty feet in height. A supplementary 
act in the following year provided for administration of the regulations 
by a local commission which was granted authority to allow variances 
in the application of the original statutory limitations. Variances were 
limited by statute to particular areas and were subject to specific limi- 
tations. In sustaining the statutes as a proper exercise of the police 
power, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts stated with respect to the 
general validity of imposing restrictions upon the height of buildings 
that: "The erection of very high buildings in cities, especially upon 
narrow streets, may be carried so far as materially to exclude sunshine, 
light, and air, and thus affect the public health. It may also increase 
danger to persons and property from fire, and be a subject for legis- 
lation on that ground. These are proper subjects for consideration in 
determining whether, in a given case, rights of property in the use of 
land should be interfered with for the public good." 

These and similar cases may be considered the prelude to the 
decisions in the mid-twenties which firmly recognized the general 
validity of comprehensive zoning ordinances regulating the use of all 
land within a municipality. 

Comprehensive zoning. A comprehensive zoning ordinance di- 
vides an entire city into specific use, height, and area zones. Any 
particular lot or parcel of land within the municipality is subject to 
these several restrictions, inasmuch as use, height, and area limitations 
coexist in all districts. The Chicago zoning ordinance, for example, 
includes nine use classifications and establishes the following use dis- 
tricts throughout the city: family residence, duplex residence, group 
house, apartment house, specialty shop, business, commercial, manu- 
facturing, and industrial districts. The land uses within each district 
are specifically limited. Height and area restrictions are applied by 
volume districts. There are four classes of volume districts super- 
imposed on the foregoing use districts. Land within each of the re- 
spective volume districts is subject to certain prescribed restrictions 
upon ground area and height of buildings. The ordinance also imposes 



10 AIRPORT ZONING 

setback lines in certain areas. For example, the owner of a lot which is 
located in a family residence and 2nd volume district would generally 
be limited as follows in the use of his land: (a) he could only erect 
a single family dwelling thereon; (b) the ground area of the building, 
exclusive of garage, could not exceed 40 percent of the area of the lot; 
(c) the height of the building could not exceed 45 feet; and (d) no 
part of the ground area of the building could be nearer the front street 
line than a distance equal to 15 percent of the average depth of all 
lots fronting in the block. 

These restrictions are fairly representative of comprehensive zoning 
regulations. They constitute limitations of real consequence upon the 
property owner's freedom to use his property as he sees fit. In some 
instances these restrictions substantially reduce the market values of 
particular parcels of land. A lot in a family residence district might 
have a much greater market value if it could be utilized for the con- 
struction of an apartment building. Similarly, land in an apartment 
district might be marketable at a considerably higher price if it were 
available for the erection of a manufacturing plant. But, despite the 
possible reduction in property values in particular instances, regulations 
of this nature are generally considered valid under the police power of 
the state. The benefit to the whole community in these situations is 
considered relatively more important than the right of the individual to 
be completely free in the use of his property. 

In planning land uses under comprehensive zoning ordinances, the 
nuisance factor is present in varying degrees. In some instances a re- 
stricted use may border on a nuisance if conducted in a particular area; 
in other instances, it is difficult to establish any element of nuisance in 
the restricted use. The erection of a duplex residence on a lot adjacent 
to a single-family dwelling within a family residence district would not 
be likely to constitute either a public or a private nuisance by common 
law principles. Nevertheless it is valid, under the police power, to 
restrict all the land in a particular area to single-family dwellings. The 
nuisance factor is more apparent, of course, in the prohibition of apart- 
ment houses or manufacturing plants in residential districts. In up- 
holding general zoning ordinances, the courts have recognized the 
element of nuisance as one of the most persuasive factors. In the land- 
mark decision in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., the 
Supreme Court of the United States, in 1926, upheld the validity of a 
comprehensive zoning ordinance. In its opinion, the court stated that 
"the law of nuisances, likewise, may be consulted, not for the purpose 
of controlling, but for the helpful aid of its analogies in the process 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 1 1 

of ascertaining the scope of, the [police] power. Thus the question 
whether the power exists to forbid the erection of a building of a 
particular kind or for a particular use, like the question whether a 
particular thing is a nuisance, is to be determined, not by an abstract 
consideration of the building or of the thing considered apart, but by 
considering it in connection with the circumstances and the locality." 
At another point, in discussing the detrimental effect of the location 
of apartment houses in single-family residence areas, the court com- 
mented: "Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a 
different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but 
highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances." 

The initial use of the police power merely to regulate a few unde- 
sirable activities has been greatly extended. Under comprehensive 
zoning, desirable as well as undesirable land uses are regulated and 
allocated. The explanation for this development lies in the obvious 
social and economic need for intelligent planning and control of land 
uses in urban areas of concentrated population. The planning of land 
uses accrues to the benefit of the whole community. It creates a proper 
environment for home and community life by segregating residential, 
business, and industrial buildings. Heavy traffic is removed from resi- 
dential areas, thereby reducing the hazards to health and safety from 
noise, congestion, and street accidents. It stabilizes property values 
in the respective areas. Police and fire protection requirements vary ac- 
cording to the character of particular neighborhoods. Confining various 
activities to prescribed locations permits the economical organization 
and maintenance of these essential governmental functions. Paving 
needs of the respective areas also vary. Allocation of land uses permits 
economies in paving, since heavy, more expensive pavement may be 
limited to the industrial and commercial zones. These considerations 
among others have led the courts to uphold comprehensive zoning ordi- 
nances. It is submitted that similar considerations for the public health, 
safety, and general welfare of the community will lead to the valida- 
tion of airport zoning regulations. 



AIRPORT ZONING 

What is airport zoning? Airport zoning in its operation does 
not differ from comprehensive zoning. It also involves the imposition 
of restrictions upon land use. Airport zoning is the regulation of the 
use of land surrounding an airport, to prevent the creation of physical 
hazards and obstructions in the airspace approaches to the airport. It 
consists primarily of regulating the height of structures on a graduated 
basis, beginning at the airport boundary and extending a radius of two 
miles from the ends of the runways and landing strips. The most re- 
strictive limitations apply in the areas immediately adjacent to the 
airport and are gradually relaxed until the outer boundary of the 
approach area is reached. A cross section perspective of the area zoned 
suggests a "shallow bowl," as an eminent zoning authority has de- 
scribed it. In addition, restrictions are also placed upon land uses in 
the approach areas which would unduly interfere with visibility and 
radio communications. 

Airport zoning differs from comprehensive zoning, however, in its 
immediate objective. It is this difference which has occasioned some to 
comment that "zoning" is not a proper term to apply to regulations 
adopted for the purpose of protecting airport approaches. Compre- 
hensive zoning involves the allocation of land uses in the entire area of 
a municipality according to an over-all integrated program for the 
benefit of the whole community. The territory of the municipality is 
surveyed with reference to the particular needs of the community for 
residential, commercial, and industrial areas. The land within the city 
is then allocated to fill these respective needs. A comprehensive zoning 
ordinance cannot be designed without due consideration of existing 
land uses, but its principal purpose is not to maintain and preserve the 
present use of any particular lands. 

Airport zoning on the other hand is directed toward effectively 
maintaining the current use of certain land as an airport. This is not 
to say that the zoning regulations essential to the protection of an air- 
port do not benefit the whole community. On the contrary, it is impos- 
sible to ignore the community benefit inherent in these regulations. 
Promotion of the community welfare is the essential factor in the 
adoption of comprehensive zoning ordinances. This is no less true of 
airport zoning ordinances. 

Need for airport zoning. The need for airport zoning is two- 
fold. The first is to prevent the creation of physical hazards in the 
airspace approaches of an airport. The need for safe and unobstructed 

12 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 13 

approaches to an airport is apparent. An airport surrounded by tall 
buildings, smokestacks, radio towers, or heavy smoke-producing in- 
dustries would be useless except for very small planes and helicopters. 

The second is to prevent the legal obstructions to the operation of 
an airport which are initiated by adjacent property owners. These ob- 
structions take the form of actions for damages, or applications for 
injunctions restraining the flight of aircraft over their lands or the 
operation of airports adjacent to their lands. This type of obstruction 
is not an obvious one but has become a potential hazard to eliminate by 
zoning. An apt illustration is provided by a recent experience in the 
Philadelphia area. In 1944 a neighboring farmer, by obtaining an in- 
junction restraining the flight of airplanes over his land below one 
hundred feet, made it impossible for commercial planes to use the 
Allentown airport. As a result, commercial service to Philadelphia was 
discontinued by the airline using these airport facilities. 

An adjacent property owner, in an effort to curtail the flight of 
planes over his premises by resorting to actions for damages or ap- 
plying for injunctive relief, may rely upon three legal theories. One is 
that constant flights in the airspace above his land constitute a taking 
of his property; another, that the flights are conducted in a manner 
w r hich constitutes a nuisance; and third, that the flights are technical 
trespasses. The adoption of valid airport zoning regulations should 
eliminate the application of the first theory and materially reduce the 
efficacy of the second and third. If valid height limitations were im- 
posed on structures on adjacent land, the landowner would not have 
a property interest in the airspaces above the established limit. The 
public would have reserved those airspaces for airplane operations. 
For this reason also, flights through the airspaces above established 
height limits would not constitute a nuisance (or technical trespass) 
if the flights were conducted in a manner consistent with the operational 
requirements of the planes and the safety of the residents below. The 
adoption of airport zoning regulations should provide a safeguard 
against the unfortunate experience of the Allentown airport. 

Obstructions to airport approaches. The physical obstructions 
to the airspace approaches of an airport which might be regulated by 
airport zoning may be classified as follows: 

1. Structural hazards. The principal obstructions which are the 
subject of airport zoning regulations are those which directly interfere 
with the passage of planes through airspace. These consist of build- 
ings, towers, electric transmission lines, or any structures or fixtures 



14 AIRPORT ZONING 

on adjacent land which project into the paths traveled by planes ap- 
proaching or leaving an airport. 

2. Visibility hazards. Interferences with the visibility of the airport 
and surrounding areas from planes also constitute obstructions which 
require regulation. In this group are activities which create gases, 
smoke, dust, and glare in the atmosphere encompassing the airport. 

3. Communication hazards. In this category are activities in the 
adjacent areas of the airport which create electrical interferences with 
radio communications between planes using an airport and airport 
traffic officials. 

4. Traffic hazards. This is a recent addition to the list of hazards 
which might be the subject of regulation by airport zoning. Traffic 
hazards often occur as the result of the improper location of additional 
airports in the vicinity of existing facilities. Unless additional airports 
are located at a sufficient distance, planes using newly established air- 
ports will obstruct the approach areas of existing fields. Airport zoning 
regulations may be used to restrict the location of future airport 
facilities. 

Failure to eliminate obstructions. Since any of the enumerated 
obstructions may render an airport substantially useless, it is impera- 
tive that appropriate steps be taken to prevent such interferences. If 
it were not possible to do so, the huge public and private investment in 
airport facilities would become worthless, and an important medium of 
public transportation would be seriously disrupted. The maintenance 
of unobstructed approach zones is a condition precedent to the approval 
of an airport by the Civil Aeronautics Administration for use by 
licensed commercial planes. Under the Federal Airport Act the receipt 
of financial aid in support of publicly owned airports is contingent upon 
the establishment and maintenance of approach zones free of hazards. 

The developments in air transportation in recent years have accen- 
tuated the need for regulating the use of lands surrounding an airport. 
Larger and heavier aircraft have been constructed to meet commercial 
and military requirements. A few years ago the glide ratio for the 
heaviest planes was 7 to 1 — that is, a gliding plane would descend 
1 foot for each 7 feet of horizontal distance traveled. Today glide 
ratios as high as 50 to 1 are applicable, and the CAA standard ratio 
for instrument landings is 40 to 1. 

With the increase in the glide ratios of planes, the effect of struc- 
tural hazards in the approach areas of an airport is much more pro- 
nounced. Assume that aircraft operating on a 40 to 1 glide ratio are 
using a particular airport. These planes must travel 40 feet hori- 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 15 

zontally in order to descend 1 foot. Consequently any structure in the 
approach area of the airport should not exceed in height 1/40 of its 
distance from the landing boundary of the field. The landing area of 
the airport will be reduced 40 feet for each foot by which any structure 
exceeds this height limitation. If, for example, a building 110 feet in 
height were erected 4000 feet from the landing boundary of the field, 
it would reduce the effective landing area of the field by 400 feet. 
Here is an obstruction which appears slight by measurement — it is 
only 10 feet above the computed height limitation; yet it produces a 
very substantial effect upon the capacity of the airport to accommodate 
planes of the 40 to 1 class. Failure to restrict obstructions of this 
nature may seriously impair airport operations. 

Coincident with the development of heavier aircraft, there has been 
a rapid expansion in the public use of air transportation facilities. This 
has produced considerable commercial, industrial, and residential de- 
velopment in the areas adjacent to airports. The erection of structures 
to meet these demands has encroached upon the lower airspace ap- 
proaches of airports. At the same time heavier planes require these 
airspaces to an increasing extent. Thus, a combination of factors inci- 
dent to the recent developments in air transportation has brought the 
problem of airport zoning into sharp focus. It is conceivable that me- 
chanical developments may ultimately remove the necessity for planes 
to use the lower airspace approaches so extensively. Until this occurs, 
however, our present problems remain. 

Alternative methods of regulating obstructions. The actual 
existence and potential creation of obstructions in the airspace ap- 
proaches of airports suggests a consideration of the various methods 
of elimination, prevention, or control. Several alternative methods are 
available or have been proposed as solutions to the problem. Some are 
effective, some merely speculative, and others extremely costly. The 
following are among those which have been considered: 

1. Marking and lighting obstructions. Marking and lighting struc- 
tures in the airspace approaches to an airport does not eliminate the 
hazard. It is merely a means of alleviating the danger. It provides no 
solution of the problem since the structures, although adequately 
marked and lighted, may render the airport entirely useless by larger 
planes. 

2. Way of necessity over adjacent land. A theory has been pro- 
pounded which would require the adjacent property owner to keep 
the airspaces above his land free of obstructions to the ingress and 
egress of aircraft to an airport. This legal theory for the protection of 



16 AIRPORT ZONING 

airport approaches is based on the proposition that use of the airways is 
comparable to the use of the public highways. If one owns land which 
is cut off from a public highway by surrounding property, he is 
deemed to have a right of way by necessity over certain adjoining land 
to the public highway. By analogy it has been suggested that, in order 
to reach the public airways, airplanes should be accorded unobstructed 
air passage over the lands surrounding an airport. There are basic ob- 
jections, both legal and practical, to the adoption of this theory, and 
thus far it has received no acceptance. There is little or no possibility 
that this proposal can be utilized as a means of protecting airport 
approaches. 

3. Court action to eliminate or enjoin obstructions. It is possible to 
rely upon the courts for the elimination or prevention of some obstruc- 
tions to airport approaches. This remedy is certainly available in those 
situations where "spite" obstructions are erected for the purpose of 
interfering with planes using an airport. These structures can be 
eliminated on the ground that they constitute public nuisances. The 
availability of this remedy in other instances where wrongful motive 
cannot be established is substantially limited. This method of main- 
taining unobstructed airspace approaches does not provide that degree 
of certainty which is necessary to effective airport approach protection. 

4. Expansion of the area of the airport. The area of an airport 
might be extended so that planes can leave and approach the airport 
boundaries at heights well beyond the range of obstructions. There is 
no question as to the effectiveness of this method of eliminating ap- 
proach hazards. But the cost of this type of protection would be pro- 
hibitive. 

5. Acquisition of adjacent property. This method of control is es- 
sentially an installment version of the preceding proposal. It involves 
the purchase of adjacent property upon which obstructions are erected, 
followed by the removal of the hazardous structures. This method is 
effective but also costly. Furthermore, any obstruction erected would 
continue until the purchase could be negotiated or condemnation pro- 
ceedings consummated. 

6. Acquisition of avigation casements. Another possibility rests in 
the acquisition of easements of flight over the property surrounding 
an airport. At the outset this method presents a very practical problem 
of valuation. It is certainly difficult, if not impossible, to determine ac- 
curately the value of such an easement. After the easement has been 
granted, the property owner will still have substantially all his property 
and will usually be in a position to continue to devote it to most 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 17 

ordinary uses. The formula for valuation of an avigation easement is 
the difference between the value of the land before and after the grant 
of the easement. The War Department has followed this procedure in 
connection with the establishment of military air fields. Valuation of 
these easements has been determined with reference to the highest and 
best use to which the property might be devoted. It is granted that 
this would be an effective method of eliminating obstructions; but 
again, the cost would be very great. 

7. Federal regulation and control. It has been proposed that the 
Federal government, in the exercise of the commerce, war, and postal 
powers, adopt a national program of airport zoning. A bill including 
a provision for the extension of Federal jurisdiction in this area was 
introduced in the House of Representatives as recently as 1943. The 
bill was subsequently rewritten, however, and this provision eliminated. 
In view of the fact that airport zoning is essentially a local problem 
with each airport presenting its own peculiar problems, it seems prefer- 
able that this matter be left in the hands of state and local authorities. 
At this point there is little probability of Federal action in view of the 
forward steps being taken by state and local governments. 

8. Airport zoning by state and local governments. Those who have 
investigated the problem of protecting airspace approaches to airports 
have unanimously concluded that zoning by state and local governments 
provides the most satisfactory solution. It is certain to provide the 
desired result; it is most practicable of administration; and finally, it 
is the least costly, since reasonable zoning regulations prevent the 
erection of hazards without requiring compensation of the landowner. 

Validity of airport zoning. All quarters interested in civic and 
aeronautical development have recognized the need for airport zoning 
and its effective solution of the problem of approach protection. Con- 
sequently, airport zoning ordinances have been widely adopted. But 
there is one remaining and all-important hurdle to be cleared — this 
is the hurdle of constitutional validity. Although the first airport zoning 
ordinance dates back twenty years, only two cases thus far have been 
decided on this issue, and only one of these by a court of last resort. 
In each instance the airport zoning regulations were held invalid. There 
is no foundation in these decisions, however, for a prediction that 
airport zoning is destined for judicial "rough-sledding." The particular 
circumstances of those cases lead to a contrary conclusion. In one, there 
was no enabling statute authorizing airport zoning by local authorities. 
In the other, the zoning regulations were so unreasonable as to clearly 
constitute a taking of property without compensation. In this latter 



18 AIRPORT ZONING 

case, no structure could be erected in some areas of the particular tract 
above a height of five feet. 

There are three aspects to the question of validity. First, does the 
political unit promulgating the zoning regulations have the power to 
do so? This is primarily a question of delegation. Has the state govern- 
ment conferred authority upon local governmental bodies to adopt 
zoning regulations for airports? At first glance, the answer would 
appear to rest upon general zoning legislation or charter authority em- 
powering local municipalities to adopt comprehensive zoning ordi- 
nances. Authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning plan, however, does 
not necessarily include authority to adopt airport zoning regulations. 
If zoning regulations for airports were adopted in conjunction with a 
comprehensive zoning plan, there would apparently be little basis for 
questioning the authority of the municipality. But this situation seldom 
exists. Ordinarily, the airport zoning regulations pertain solely to the 
protection of airport approaches and have no relation to the compre- 
hensive zoning plan. In other cases, the airport is located wholly or 
partially outside the limits of the municipality, and the local governing 
unit has no general zoning authority beyond its boundaries. For these 
reasons, it has been generally concluded that express legislative or 
charter authority to adopt airport zoning ordinances should be granted 
local municipalities. 

If express authority has been conferred by the state upon the 
municipality, we are confronted with a second question. Is airport 
zoning a proper exercise of the police power? Do airport zoning regu- 
lations bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals 
or general welfare? Is the public interest such that it is reasonable to 
impose restrictions upon the use of property adjacent to an airport 
without compensating the owner for the resulting loss in value? The 
decision necessarily involves weighing the respective interests of the 
public and the individual. 

Air transportation has become an increasingly important avenue of 
commerce. It is destined to acquire paramount importance. The public 
has an unlimited stake in its further development. The mail, passenger, 
and freight services provided by air transport facilities are a boon to 
every community. Immeasurable economic and social progress has uni- 
versally attended the development of the various methods of transpor- 
tation. All circumstances point toward similar benefits arising out of 
the development of air transportation. Furthermore, the public has a 
huge investment in publicly owned airport facilities. In ruling upon 
the validity of expending public funds in the acquisition and develop- 
ment of airports, the courts have recognized the public interest in air 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 19 

transportation and have held that the expenditures are for a public 
purpose. In sustaining the exercise of the power of eminent domain 
in acquiring publicly owned airport sites, the courts have referred to 
them as public utilities. Another factor which cannot be ignored is 
the relation of airport facilities to our national defense. These con- 
siderations warrant only one conclusion; namely, that the promotion 
of the public welfare is inherent in the protection afforded airports by 
the adoption of reasonable zoning regulations. 

The promotion of the public safety by the adoption of airport 
zoning regulations affords a more specific basis for extension of the 
police power in this area. With the increasing number of airplanes 
and the increasing number of air passengers, unobstructed approaches 
to airports are essential to the public safety. This benefit accrues not 
only to the air-minded public but also to those residing, working, or 
traveling in areas surrounding airports. Hazards to airplanes approach- 
ing an airport are also hazards to the safety of the people in the ad- 
jacent areas. The exercise of the police power for the purpose of 
protecting and promoting the public health and safety has generally 
met with judicial approval. 

If it is determined that airport zoning bears a substantial relation to 
the public safety and general welfare, we are faced with the last and 
probably most troublesome question of all. It arises upon application 
of a particular airport zoning regulation to specific property. The 
question involves the extent to which a restriction may be placed upon 
the use of adjacent property without there being an unlawful taking of 
that property. 

At the outset, it may be granted that an attempt to apply airport 
zoning regulations retroactively against existing obstructions would be 
unreasonable and amount to an unlawful taking of property. Airport 
zoning statutes explicitly prohibit retroactive application of the restric- 
tions adopted. Our concern as to validity lies in the prospective ap- 
plication of airport zoning regulations. The answer depends on whether 
the restrictions are reasonable. As is true of any case involving the 
question of reasonableness, there is no standard rule-of-thumb appli- 
cable in every situation. Each case must be decided in the light of its 
particular facts and circumstances. There are, however, certain general 
considerations which might be noted. 

In the first place, we are faced with the fact that airport zoning 
regulations do affect the property interests of the landowner. The 
original notion that the landowner's property extends from the surface 
to the heavens has, of course, long since been rejected. Beyond a certain 
height the landowner's property interest ceases to exist; it does not ex- 



20 AIRPORT ZONING 

tend into the upper airspaces. There is an area in the airspace above the 
land, however, which all will agree is the property of the landowner. No 
one would assert that the landowner has a property interest in the 
airspaces 5000 feet or 10,000 feet above the surface of the land. But 
all would agree that the landowner has a property interest in the air- 
spaces 5, 10, 50, or 100 feet above his land. Legal authorities are not 
in agreement as to the exact nature, character, description or boun- 
daries of this recognized property interest. That is immaterial. The 
important consideration is that airport zoning regulations do constitute 
an interference with recognized property interests. If the height limi- 
tation upon structures imposed by an airport zoning ordinance sub- 
stantially divests the property owner of that interest, there is a taking 
of property without compensation. 

Perhaps the maximum airport zoning regulation can be defined in 
terms of the minimum use which should be assured the owner of ad- 
jacent property. If the zoning ordinance should impose upon his land 
a restriction that no structure could be erected in excess of ten feet 
in height, such a regulation would undoubtedly constitute an unreason- 
able restriction. Considering the ordinary uses to which land may be 
devoted, a height limitation of ten feet would eliminate most possibili- 
ties. Few, if any, useful structures could be erected on the land at all. 
The only remaining ordinary use would be agricultural. Such a re- 
striction would clearly constitute a taking of the landowner's property. 
If, on the other hand, the height limitation would permit the erection 
of two-story structures (for example, 35 feet), the regulation would 
permit the use of the land for practically all the ordinary purposes to 
which land is devoted. The premises could be used for agricultural, 
residential, commercial, business, or manufacturing purposes subject, 
of course, to any comprehensive zoning or other airport zoning re- 
strictions which might be applicable. At the same time, the approach 
zones of the airport would be adequately protected. This would achieve 
a reasonable balance between the interests of the public in unobstructed 
airspace approaches and the interest of the individual in the use of his 
land. A regulation imposing this type of restriction should stand the 
test of reasonableness and thus assure the validity of the ordinance. 



AIRPORT ZONING LEGISLATION 

Need for legislation. As previously noted, one of the conditions 
precedent to the validity of airport zoning is the existence of authority 
in the governmental unit which enacts the regulations. Since the powers 
of local governing bodies are derived from the state, it is essential that 
there be a delegation ,of authority to the local political subdivisions 
to act in this field. The peculiar problems of airport zoning create doubt 
as to whether the grant of authority to adopt general zoning ordinances 
is sufficiently broad to include airport zoning. In those instances where 
the airport or approach areas are located beyond its territorial limits, 
the municipality is without authority to adopt necessary regulations. 
To resolve any doubts in favor of the existence of the power, and to 
grant authority where it is obviously lacking, it has been deemed 
generally advisable for the respective states to adopt enabling statutes 
expressly conferring authority upon the municipalities or providing 
for necessary charter modifications. 

Adoption of enabling statutes. Statutes authorizing airport 
zoning by local governmental units were first adopted in 1929. In that 
year, Indiana and Connecticut passed legislation authorizing zoning by 
local authorities to protect airport approaches. This was followed by 
similar legislation in Alabama and Maine, in 1931. By the end of 1938, 
nine states had adopted general airport zoning statutes. These were 
Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 
Michigan, and Pennsylvania. With the exception of Maryland and 
Pennsylvania, the statutes delegated zoning authority to state agencies 
or local governmental units. The Maryland and Pennsylvania acts, on 
the other hand, were self -operating in that specific height limitations 
applicable to the areas surrounding airports were incorporated in their 
respective statutes. 

The vigorous leadership and activity of the National Institute of 
Municipal Law Officers and the Civil Aeronautics Administration in 
the promotion of airport zoning has led to the widespread adoption 
of enabling statutes. Since April, 1939, both have sponsored a series 
of model airport zoning statutes, either independently or on a co- 
operative basis. The fifth and most recent model act, dated November 
7, 1944, is a joint CAA-NIMLO product and appears in the Appendix 
at page 46. The model statutes developed over the period 1939-1944 
have been adopted in many jurisdictions or have provided the basic pat- 
tern for the statutes enacted. At this writing, forty states and Alaska 

21 



22 AIRPORT ZONING 

and Hawaii have general airport zoning statutes in effect. A list of 
these statutes is included in the Appendix at page 54. 

Problems requiring legislative treatment. The following com- 
ments are framed around the provisions of the CAA-NIMLO Model 
Act. There are two reasons for this: first, many statutes are similar, if 
not identical, to the Model Act; second, the Model Act currently re- 
flects the best informed and composite view of the statutory approach 
to this problem. It will serve as the basis for additional adoptions of 
enabling acts and the amendment or replacement of existing statutes. 

In drafting any statute there are preliminary matters which require 
attention. These include the title, definition of terms, etc. The defi- 
nitions of the terms used in the Model Act are included in Section 1. 
It is interesting to note that the term "airport" includes all airports, 
whether public or private, which are operated in the public interest. The 
term "political subdivision" is defined to include any political unit of the 
state. Since the adoption of an act authorizing airport zoning constitutes 
a proposed extension of the police power, it is well that the legislature 
indicate the factors motivating its action. Section 2 of the Model Act 
performs this function and declares in some detail that obstructions 
to airport approaches are a menace to the public health, safety, and 
general welfare, and constitute public nuisances requiring regulation. 
This recital is not binding upon a court in determining whether airport 
zoning is a valid exercise of the police power; but this declaration by 
the legislature would be accorded considerable weight. 

A number of substantive and procedural problems which arise in 
connection with the adoption, administration, and enforcement of air- 
port zoning ordinances require legislative determination. These are 
completely provided for in a satisfactory enabling statute. The various 
problems and their treatment under the Model Act are outlined as 
follows: 

1. Agencies authorized to adopt airport zoning regulations. There 
has been some disagreement as to whether, as a matter of policy, local 
governmental units alone should be entrusted with authority to zone 
airports. In some states it has been deemed advisable to place super- 
visory control in an agency of the state government. In other states, 
actual zoning authority has been vested exclusively or concurrently in 
a state agency. The policy of the National Institute of Municipal Law 
Officers and the position of the American Municipal Association has 
been to encourage airport zoning exclusively by local authorities. Sec- 
tion 3 of the Model Act has been drafted to place primary responsibility 
with local officials. Since the problems of airport zoning are essentially 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 23 

local, it would seem preferable to place initial zoning authority in the 
hands of local governing bodies. This is especially advisable where air- 
port zoning regulations are to apply in an area already subject to a 
general zoning ordinance promulgated by a local governmental unit. 
The local officials are in a better position to adopt an airport zoning 
ordinance which can be most satisfactorily integrated with existing 
zoning regulations. There would also be considerable advantage to both 
the landowner and the public in having the same property zoned by 
the same governmental unit. 

There is considerable to be gained, however, by placing general 
supervisory authority in a state agency. The principal benefit lies in the 
assistance which this body can render in connection with the technical 
details involved in the preparation of an airport zoning ordinance. It 
also assures adherence to recognized approach standards. As a pre- 
cautionary measure, it is advisable to authorize the state agency to adopt 
necessary zoning regulations where the local authorities have failed to 
act or have imposed inadequate restrictions. (See footnote 6, p. 47, in 
the Appendix.) 

2. Zoning for privately owned airports. Zoning for privately owned 
airports has not received the unqualified support that has been ac- 
corded zoning for publicly owned fields. Some doubt has been ex- 
pressed as to the validity of zoning regulations adopted for the protec- 
tion of a private airport. These doubts would certainly be justified if 
the airport were not devoted to public use. Where privately owned air- 
ports are operated in the public interest, however, the same considera- 
tions supporting zoning for publicly owned airports would certainly 
exist. The provisions of the various model zoning acts have differed 
on this point as have the enabling statutes adopted by the respective 
states. As noted in connection with the definition of terms, the current 
Model Act authorizes the adoption of zoning regulations for the pro- 
tection of all airports operated in the public interest. 

3. Extra-territorial zoning. Many municipally owned airports are 
located beyond the territorial limits of the respective cities. In order 
that the approaches to these airports may be adequately protected, it 
has been necessary to extend the zoning authority of the proprietor 
municipality beyond its territorial limits. Section 3 of the Model Act 
provides three alternative methods of regulating the approach areas 
of these airports: 

(a) The political sudivision within which the airport is located may 
adopt zoning regulations. (Section 3 (1).) 

(b) The owner-municipality and the political subdivision within 



24 AIRPORT ZONING 

which the airport is located may create a joint airport zoning board to 
adopt necessary regulations. (Section 3 (2).) 

(c) The owner municipality may be authorized to adopt necessary 
zoning regulations by independent action. This authority would be 
exercised only where the political subdivision within which the airport 
is located fails to act in accordance with either of the foregoing authori- 
zations, or adopts inadequate restrictions under the first method. (See 
footnote 6, page 47.) 

The Minnesota authorities have prepared a suggested formal re- 
quest to be utilized by owner municipalities to initiate procedures (a) 
or (b). (See Appendix, page 60.) Failure of the addressed govern- 
mental body to act favorably upon the request opens the door for 
independent action by the owner municipality under method (c). 

4. Airport zoning standards. The character of the area surround- 
ing an airport varies with each airfield. Consequently, it is impracticable 
to include specific height limitations in the enabling statute which shall 
be applied to every airport zoned throughout the state. Some statutes 
have included specific regulations. The preferable and more general 
treatment, however, has been to reserve to the local zoning authorities 
a determination of the regulations particularly adaptable to the airport 
zoned. The only standard prescribed in the Model Act is found in Sec- 
tion 6 (1). There it is provided that "airport zoning regulations . . . 
shall be reasonable and none shall impose any requirement or restric- 
tion which is not reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of 
this Act." It is further provided that in adopting regulations there 
should be taken into account ".' . . among other things, the character 
of the flying operations expected to be conducted at the airport, the 
nature of the terrain within the airport hazard area, the character of 
the neighborhood, and the uses to which the property to be zoned is put 
and adaptable." 

5. Airport zoning and comprehensive zoning. Comprehensive 
zoning regulations are often in operation in the approach areas sur- 
rounding an airport or are subsequently adopted in those areas. Where 
this is the case, airport zoning provisions should, if possible, be in- 
corporated and integrated in the comprehensive zoning ordinance. 
Section 4 ( 1 ) of the Model Act expressly authorizes this procedure. 

Since airport zoning regulations are not generally related to the 
comprehensive zoning scheme, there is considerable likelihood that 
the regulations adopted to protect an airport will not coincide with ex- 
isting zoning restrictions relating to the height of structures and land 
uses. To anticipate this situation, it is generally provided that in the 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 25 

event of conflict the more restrictive regulations shall govern. This is 
the provision of Section 4 (2) of the Model Act. 

6. Elimination of existing obstructions. It often occurs that hazard- 
ous obstructions lawfully exist within the approach areas of an airport 
at the time an airport zoning ordinance is adopted. In many instances 
it is essential that these obstructions be removed. Forcing removal 
at the expense of the property owner by giving retroactive application 
to the airport zoning ordinance would constitute a taking of property 
without due process of law, unless it could be shown that such ob- 
structions were public nuisances. This is a difficult obstacle to overcome. 
To obviate possible invalidity on this point, the Model Act expressly 
provides that no airport zoning regulation shall be given retroactive 
effect. (Section 6 (2).) 

In order to provide validly and effectively for the elimination of 
existing hazards, however, local governmental bodies are generally 
authorized to acquire necessary property rights in adjacent property. 
With this authority, the political subdivision may secure the removal 
of existing obstructions by acquiring an avigation easement over the 
property or complete title to the property either by purchase or by con- 
demnation. Section 13 of the Model Act incorporates such a provision. 

An additional provision relating to the removal of existing non- 
conforming uses is suggested in connection with the section on permits. 
(See footnote 9, page 49.) This provision would apply in those in- 
stances where an existing nonconforming use is subsequently aban- 
doned, or more than 80 percent destroyed. Under these circumstances, 
the structure may be repaired or reconstructed only in conformity 
with the zoning restrictions. This provision appears both expedient 
and reasonable. The validity of similar provisions has been generally 
established in connection with comprehensive zoning ordinances. 

The Iowa enabling act contains an effective variation in its pro- 
visions pertaining to the regulation of existing obstructions. Although 
zoning regulations are not to be given retroactive application, political 
subdivisions are specifically authorized to mark and light existing ob- 
structions at their own expense. The Model Act only authorizes mark- 
ing and lighting in connection with the issuance of permits and the 
allowance of variances. (Sections 6 (2) and 7 (3).) 

7. Adoption, administrative, and judicial procedures. Necessary 
administrative and enforcement machinery must be provided in any 
zoning legislation. At the same time, an important safeguard is the 
inclusion of adequate procedures for the protection of property owners. 
Provisions of this type promote the acceptance of zoning regulations 



26 AIRPORT ZONING 

by both the property owners and the courts. The various procedures 
provided in the Model Act are summarized to illustrate the machinery 
ordinarily established under an airport zoning statute. These provisions 
are based in great part on the experience and developments in the field 
of comprehensive zoning. 

(a) "Adoption of airport zoning regulations." It is important that 
adequate consideration be given to proposed airport zoning regulations 
prior to adoption by the legislative body of the local political sub- 
division. To avoid ill-conceived regulations, it is provided in Sec- 
tion 5 that the legislative body appoint an Airport Zoning Commission 
to conduct a survey and submit its recommendations. This Commis- 
sion may consist (and preferably so) of the city planning authority 
or regional planning authority if one already exists in the area. The 
Commission prepares a preliminary report and holds a public hearing 
thereon before its final report is submitted. Before acting on the Com- 
mission's report, the legislative body also holds a public hearing after 
giving public notice. This procedure assures the surrounding property 
owners an opportunity to present their case fully. 

(b) "Administration of airport zoning regulations." There must be 
some officer or body to administer the regulations which are adopted in 
an airport zoning ordinance. Section 9 of the Model Act provides that 
the administrative and enforcement agency shall be created or desig- 
nated at the time airport zoning regulations are adopted by the local 
legislative body. 

The zoning regulations are made effective by providing a permit 
system as indicated in Section 7 (1) of the Model Act. A permit must 
be applied for and obtained from the administrative officer in all cases 
as a condition precedent to the erection, repair, or alteration of any 
structure in the area zoned. Permits may be issued only if the con- 
struction, repair, or alteration is in conformance with the zoning restric- 
tions. Permits for the repair or alteration of existing nonconforming 
uses may be issued only if the hazards created by those structures are 
not increased. The administrative officer does not have authority to 
rule upon applications for variances. Initial jurisdiction over the allow- 
ance of variances is placed with the Board of Adjustment. 

(c) "Variances and appeals." In some instances, strict application 
of the zoning regulations adopted may result in imposing a burden 
upon the landowner incommensurate with the benefit accruing to the 
public. In other instances, the property owner may conclude that the 
administrative officer is improperly applying the zoning regulations to 
his property. These situations create a need for an administrative body 
to resolve the conflicts. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 27 

The Model Act provides that a Board of Adjustment shall be 
created with authority to rule upon applications for variances and to 
hear appeals from the action of the administrative officer. (See Sec- 
tions 7 (2), 8, 10.) The personnel of the board shall be divorced from 
the administration of the zoning regulations. The Board may be sepa- 
rately constituted or may be the zoning board of appeals or board 
of adjustment previously established under a comprehensive zoning 
ordinance. The Board shall prescribe the rules to be followed in apply- 
ing for variances and in taking appeals from the administrative officer. 
It is provided that hearings shall be public and that decisions shall be 
reached by majority vote of the members. 

The Board of Adjustment may authorize a variance from the 
regulations adopted by the legislative body "where a literal application 
or enforcement of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or 
unnecessary hardship and the relief granted would not be contrary to 
the public interest but do substantial justice and be in accordance with 
the spirit of the regulations and this Act . . . ." Reasonable conditions 
may be placed by the Board upon any variance which it grants. The 
Act specifically authorizes the imposition of a condition that the 
political subdivision be permitted to mark and light the structure coming 
under the variance, where the Board determines this precaution to be 
both advisable and reasonable. 

Appeals to the Board from the administrative agency must be made 
within a reasonable time as established by the rules of the Board. An 
appeal to the Board shall stay the action of the administrative agency, 
unless the latter certifies that imminent peril to life or property would 
result. But the Board may, even in this situation, stay the action of the 
administrative agency after notice and upon due cause shown. The 
Board shall afford a hearing within a reasonable time after public notice 
and notice to the parties. It may affirm or reverse, wholly or partly, or 
modify the determination of the administrative agency. Adequate 
records of its proceedings are to be kept and made available to the 
public." 

(d) "Judicial review." Provision for appeal from the Board of 
Adjustment to the courts is the final link in the procedural protection 
afforded the property owner. It is also available to the governing body 
affected by an adverse decision of the Board. (See Section 11.) Such 
an appeal must be taken within thirty days after the Board's decision 
is filed. There is no stay of proceedings upon the Board's decision 
unless a restraining order is obtained from the court on a showing of 
due cause. The Board's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by 
substantial evidence. Furthermore, the court is limited to a considera- 



28 AIRPORT ZONING 

tion of the objections made before the Board. It cannot rule upon 
additional objections unless there is a reasonable explanation for the 
complainant's failure to have raised these matters in the proceedings 
before the Board. 

8. Enforcement provisions. Needless to say, effective enforcement 
of airport zoning regulations is essential to the accomplishment of the 
purpose for which adopted. In Section 12, the Model Act provides 
two types of remedies, one criminal and one civil. The first remedy is 
created by providing that a violation of any rules or regulations adopted 
under the Act shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by fine or 
imprisonment or both. The second, and more effective remedy, is pro- 
vided by authorizing political subdivisions to apply to the courts for 
injunctive relief necessary to the specific enforcement of particular 
regulations. 



AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCES 

Adoption of airport zoning ordinances. Strangely enough, the 
first airport zoning ordinance antedated the first enabling statute for 
airport zoning. The County of Alameda, California, is credited with 
the distinction of being the first governmental unit to adopt an airport 
zoning ordinance. The ordinance adopted by that body, in December, 
1928, provided that no obstruction more than 50 feet high should be 
erected within 1000 feet of the boundary of any public airport within 
the county. A few weeks later, in January, 1929, the Board of Port 
Commissioners of the City of Oakland, California, adopted an ordi- 
nance imposing the same restrictions upon land uses in the area sur- 
rounding the Oakland Municipal Airport. In December, 1930, airport 
zoning received considerable impetus as a result of the report by the ' 
Committee on Airport Zoning and Eminent Domain of the Department 
of Commerce. It recommended the general adoption of airport zoning- 
ordinances as an economical and effective means of protecting airport 
approaches. In April, 1939, the National Institute of Municipal Law 
Officers, on the basis of a survey conducted throughout the country, 
reported the adoption of special airport zoning ordinances by 
twelve cities: Akron, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; Clifton, New Jersey; 
Dearborn, Michigan; Indianapolis, Indiana; Philadelphia, Pennsyl- 
vania; Seattle, Washington; and Fresno, Glendale, Los Angeles, Oak- 
land, and San Diego, California. Two cities, Omaha, Nebraska, and 
Atlantic City, New Jersey, were reported to have provided adequate 
airport zoning protection under their general comprehensive zoning 
ordinances. It is not indicated that this survey was all inclusive of 
airport zoning ordinances then in operation. In any event, it was 
sufficiently complete to be fairly indicative of the extent of adoptions at 
that time. 

In the same report, the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers 
included a draft of a model zoning ordinance to accompany its model 
airport zoning statute. The increased activities of the National Insti- 
tute of Municipal Law Officers and the Civil Aeronautics Administra- 
tion since 1939 in promoting the adoption of airport zoning regulations 
have been responsible for the developments that have occurred in the 
interim and the widespread current interest in this problem. This in- 
terest is centered around the preparation of airport zoning ordinances 
and the provisions to be included therein. 

Preparing an airport zoning ordinance. Assistance. There are 
a number of invaluable sources of assistance and information which 

29 



30 AIRPORT ZONING 

may be utilized in preparing an airport zoning ordinance. Often there 
is a state aeronautical department or other agency established for the 
express purpose, among others, of assisting local governmental bodies 
in this task. The state agency may have prepared a model ordinance 
or other materials for the guidance of local officials. If not, copies of 
model ordinances prepared for use in other jurisdictions might be 
obtained for their helpful suggestions. The National Institute of 
Municipal Law Officers has prepared a recent revision of its Model 
Zoning Ordinance which is included in the Appendix at page 46. 
This and other materials and information are available to the officials 
of municipalities which are members of that organization. The Civil 
Aeronautics Administration is also vitally interested. Advisory service 
on problems of airport zoning is available from Regional Administra- 
tors, Superintendents of Airports, and District Airport Engineers in 
the various Civil Aeronautics Administration field offices or from the 
Airport Operations Service, Office of Airports, Washington, D. C. The 
establishment of airport approach standards by the Civil Aeronautics 
Administration has facilitated the task of determining the areas to be 
zoned and the height restrictions to be adopted. A helpful pamphlet 
on the subject has been prepared by the Air Transport Association of 
America, Washington, D. C, and is entitled: Airline Airport Design 
Recommendations, Part II — Airport Obstructions, Approaches, and 
Zoning. 

General Considerations. The factors to be considered in the prepa- 
ration of an airport zoning ordinance necessarily vary with each airport 
zoned. The following, however, are among the items generally re- 
quiring consideration: 

1. "Present and potential land uses in the surrounding areas." 
This factor requires the greatest consideration of all. The validity 

of any airport zoning ordinance will depend on whether the regulations 
adopted are reasonable in the light of present and potential land uses 
in the surrounding areas. 

2. "Size of the airport — Type of planes handled." 

The size of the airport determines the type of traffic and planes 
which can be handled. This in turn will determine the height limita- 
tions to be imposed upon the land in the approach areas. The larger the 
airport, the heavier the airplanes handled or to be handled, and the 
more restrictive must be the height limitations adopted. 

3. "Topography." 

The topography of the area surrounding the airport will affect the 
location of runways and landing strips. An airport located in a valley 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 31 

or depressed area must place its runways and landing strips in con- 
formance with the surrounding terrain. This will limit the approach 
areas of the field and will determine the areas to be zoned against 
obstructions. 

4. "Prevailing winds." 

Prevailing winds will also affect the location of the airport run- 
ways and landing strips. If wind conditions are such that runways are 
located so that landings and take-offs are limited to few directions, 
that will limit the areas in which the more restrictive height regula- 
tions must be applied. 

5. "Comprehensive zoning ordinances." 

If there is a comprehensive zoning ordinance in operation in the 
area, consideration should be given to the incorporation of the airport 
zoning regulations as an integral part of the general plan. This should 
be done wherever practicable. It will facilitate and simplify the adop- 
tion and administration of the regulations. It will tend to assure validity 
since, by being part of a general zoning plan, the regulations are less 
likely to fail to meet the test of reasonableness. 

6. "Use of maps." 

In preparing an airport zoning ordinance, the use of maps is in- 
dispensable whether or not the regulations for the protection of the 
airport approaches are integrated in a comprehensive zoning plan. Ad- 
ministration of the regulations is materially facilitated by maps which 
indicate clearly the approach areas zoned and the applicable height 
restrictions. The zoning map prepared for Boeing Field Airport, which 
is reproduced in the Appendix at page 59, is an excellent example. 
It will be noted that the field and its approach areas are located partly 
within the City of Seattle and partly within King County. Conse- 
quently, it was necessary for the two political units to act concurrently 
in the adoption of appropriate regulations. The regulations adopted by 
both the city and the county were integrated with and made a part of 
their respective comprehensive zoning codes. 

Meeting the Test of Reasonableness. The major task facing the 
drafters of airport zoning ordinances is the adoption of height limita- 
tions which will meet the ultimate judicial test of "reasonableness." 
"Reasonableness" is grantedly an extremely nebulous test. There is 
no established formula capable of universal application. Consideration 
of the character of the area surrounding the airport, however, does 
lead to certain general conclusions with respect to this problem. 

If the airport is located in an area which is relatively completely 
developed, the maximum height restrictions must necessarily recognize 



32 AIRPORT ZONING 

general existing uses. Assume that the land in a particular area to be 
zoned is improved with buildings, 70 percent of which are 75 feet or 
more in height. An airport zoning ordinance is adopted which estab- 
lishes a height limitation of 60 feet on any structures to be erected 
in the area in the future. Under the circumstances, this regulation 
is obviously unreasonable. It suggests that the airport is currently 
operating satisfactorily with most structures in the area at a height 
of 75 feet, but that anticipated developments will necessitate lowering 
surrounding structures in the future. Airport zoning regulations can- 
not be validly devised to impose upon adjacent property owners the 
burden of existing deficiencies in the location of the airport. 

This suggests another point to be considered. It is implicit in the 
changes which have occurred in the glide ratios of planes as a result of 
the development of larger craft. Zoning for planes of the 7 to 1 class 
would not preserve the approach areas for planes of the 40 to 1 class. 
Will zoning ordinances based on the 40 to 1 or 50 to 1 glide ratios 
of today preserve the approach areas for the planes of tomorrow? 
That is a risk inherent in the current adoption of airport zoning ordi- 
nances. The framers of airport zoning ordinances must have an eye for 
the future as well as the present. Ordinances drafted today should im- 
pose maximum restrictions upon the height of structures compatible 
with the measure of reasonableness. 

The fact that the airport is located in a relatively undeveloped agri- 
cultural area, however, does not allow a free hand in devising zoning 
restrictions. There are, of course, no existing uses by which the 
framers are bound. But potential future uses of the surrounding areas 
cannot be ignored. An airport does not operate in seclusion. There 
must be adequate housing facilities in the area for those employed at 
the airport. There must be adequate commercial establishments to meet 
the demands of residents and air travelers. The airport zoning restric- 
tions adopted must permit sufficient future development of housing and 
business establishments. The height restrictions imposed in agricultural 
areas surrounding an airport must conform to the reasonable and ordi- 
nary land uses of the future. An airport zoning ordinance cannot be 
framed in opposition to the fact that cities develop in the environment 
of transportation terminals. 

Zoning for an airport located in a relatively undeveloped area im- 
mediately suggests the desirability, if not the necessity, of regional 
planning and zoning. A major airport located in a relatively unde- 
veloped area is ordinarily beyond the territorial limits of the owner 
municipality. It has been so located to meet the current and antici- 
pated demands of heavier traffic and heavier planes. Suitable and 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 33 

adequate facilities are not available in the more congested areas of the 
urban community. Future community development in the region of the 
new airport is a foregone conclusion. The necessity for regional plan- 
ning and zoning which would incorporate the airport as an integrated 
part of the w T hole regional scheme of land uses would result in adequate 
protection of the airport approaches. There would be no need for 
separate airport zoning. 

Provisions of airport zoning ordinances. The suggestions herein 
regarding the provisions to be included in an airport zoning ordinance 
are based primarily upon the Model Ordinance prepared by the Na- 
tional Institute of Municipal Law Officers. The Model Ordinance fol- 
lows the pattern of the Model Airport Zoning Act and is included in 
the Appendix at page 55. The NIMLO Model Ordinance furnishes 
the basic outline and provisions for any airport zoning ordinance. 
Circumstances, both legal and nonlegal, vary from state to state and 
airport to airport, and no model ordinance can be applied without 
some variation. Various adaptations of this Model Ordinance have been 
suggested, and the following recent materials have been examined and 
compared with the provisions of the Model Ordinance: 

1. Model Ordinance for Iowa Municipalities; prepared by Mr. Ray 
Nyemaster, Des Moines, Iowa, with the cooperation and suggestions 
of the Attorney General of the State of Iowa, the Iowa Aeronautics 
Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and Mr. Charles S. 
Rhyne, General Counsel, National Institute of Municipal Law Officers. 

2. Model Airport Zoning Ordinance for the Zoning of Public Air- 
ports by Minnesota Municipalities and Counties; prepared by the 
Minnesota Department of Aeronautics in conjunction with and assisted 
by the League of Minnesota Municipalities, and approved by the At- 
torney General of the State of Minnesota. 

3. Model Airport Zoning Ordinance for New York Municipalities; 
issued by the Bureau of Aviation, Department of Commerce, State 
of New York. 

4. Recommended Airport Zoning Ordinance for Tucson Municipal 
Airport No. 2; prepared by the Pima County Post-war Planning Board 
and Airport Zoning Commission, Tucson, Arizona. 

5. Model Airport Zoning Ordinance for Wisconsin Cities and Vil- 
lages; prepared by the League of Wisconsin Municipalities in coopera- 
tion with the Wisconsin State Planning Board. 

The significant variations between these ordinances and the NIMLO 
Model Ordinance are included in the text to follow or published in the 
Appendix. The NIMLO ordinance will hereafter be referred to as 



34 AIRPORT ZONING 

the "Model Ordinance"; the other ordinances will be referred to as the 
Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Tucson, and Wisconsin ordinances, 
respectively. 

Establishing Zones and Height Limitations. The first task is to 
define and identify the areas in which restrictions are to be imposed 
under the ordinance. These will generally be determined in accordance 
with the Airport Approach Standards established by the Civil Aero- 
nautics Administration. In some instances, the enabling statutes pro- 
vide that minimum zoning standards for airports shall be established 
by a state agency. Minnesota, for example, has provided that its 
Commissioner of Aeronautics shall establish minimum airport approach 
and turning standards for public airports in that state. These have 
been determined substantially on the basis of Civil Aeronautics Ad- 
ministration standards and appear on page 60 in the Appendix. 

In accordance with the CAA Airport Approach Standards, it is 
customary practice to zone the surrounding areas for a radius of two 
miles from the ends of the airport runways and landing strips. The 
Wisconsin ordinance, however, provides for zoning the surrounding 
areas for a distance of three miles. The extension of the area zoned 
may be desirable as a precautionary measure, to preserve additional 
unobstructed airspaces in contemplation of future requirements. 

Section 3 of the Model Ordinance divides the surrounding area 
into two zones, "approach zones" and "turning zones." These may be 
pictured by referring to the CAA Airport Approach Standards in the 
drawing on page 59 of the Appendix. The "approach zones" fan out- 
ward from the ends of the runways to the boundary of the area zoned 
and resemble the spokes of a wheel. The areas between these spokes 
are designated "turning zones." The more restrictive height limitations 
are placed upon structures in the approach zones. A maximum height 
limitation of 150 feet is allowed in the turning zones. In addition, there 
are "transition zones" in the CAA drawing, which lie between the inner 
areas of the approach zones and the turning zones. The inner areas 
of the approach zones are those where the maximum height limitations 
are less than 150 feet. The height restrictions imposed in the transition 
zones provide for a gradual outward increase on a 7 to 1 slope from the 
edge of the approach zone to a height of 150 feet, thus forming the 
boundary of the adjacent turning zone. 

The Model Ordinance does not provide for a detailed description 
of the respective zones. It merely incorporates by reference the zones 
as delineated on the Airport Approach Plan (map) applicable to the 
particular airport. This method is followed in the New York and 
Tucson ordinances. The Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin ordinances, 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 35 

however, include a description in metes and bounds of the respective 
zones and also incorporate, by reference, applicable zoning maps. These 
provisions of the Minnesota ordinance are included in the Appendix 
at page 60, together with illustrative maps and diagrams. Unless local 
statutory requirements or other considerations compel a description of 
the areas zoned, it would seem preferable merely to incorporate a map 
indicating the respective zones established. The provisions of the New 
York ordinance, on page 61 of the Appendix, illustrate the latter 
method. In some instances additional intermediate zones are established 
in the ordinance, such as landing zones, landing transition zones, and 
approach transition zones. The proposed Tucson ordinance provides 
such additional classifications. These provisions with illustrative maps 
and diagrams appear at page 62 in the Appendix. 

The height limitations to be applied in the respective zones should 
be established in accordance with the CAA Airport Approach Stand- 
ards or similar standards adopted by a state agency having supervisory 
authority. These will be adopted after taking into account necessary 
factors bearing upon the question of reasonableness. In order to meet 
the test of reasonableness, it may be necessary, in adopting height 
restrictions conforming to established approach standards, to expand 
the airport boundaries or acquire avigation easements over the prop- 
erty immediately bordering the field. Section 4 of the Model Ordinance, 
relating to height limits, does not include any specific provisions, 
recognizing that these will vary with each airport. The height limita- 
tions in the Minnesota, New York, and Tucson ordinances which ap- 
pear in the Appendix are illustrative of the type of height limitation 
provisions to be included in an airport zoning ordinance. 

Use Restrictions and Exceptions. The next provision of impor- 
tance to be included in an airport zoning ordinance is a restriction 
upon land uses in the zoned areas which are likely to interfere with 
visibility and communications. Section 5 of the Model Ordinance is 
designed to regulate these obstructions. The Minnesota and New York 
ordinances incorporate this provision without substantial changes. The 
Iowa ordinance also adopts this provision but adds an exception as to 
trees and structures, providing that "the mere height of trees or struc- 
tures on any land in said zones conforming to the height restrictions 
prescribed in Article IV of this ordinance shall not constitute a use of 
land in violation of this Section." 

The Wisconsin ordinance also incorporates Section 5 of the Model 
Ordinance, but it adds an exception clause which excludes legal fences, 
farm crops, and certain railroad structures from the height limitations 
prescribed in the preceding provisions of the ordinance. This provision 



36 AIRPORT ZONING 

appears in the following language: "The [height] restrictions contained 
in Section 3 shall not apply to legal fences or to farm crops which are 
cut at least once each year, or to railroad buildings, bridges or facilities, 
but shall apply to railroad, telegraph, telephone, and overhead signal 
system poles and wires." 

The Tucson ordinance elaborates on the Model Ordinance pro- 
vision by detailing certain specific land uses which are prohibited and 
then concludes with the language of Section 5. The following uses are 
prohibited: transformer stations; high power transmission lines; heavy 
smoke-producing manufacturing establishments; plants discharging 
gases and odors which interfere with the use of the airport; and any 
business or structure detrimental or injurious to the public in the use 
of the airport. This provision of the Tucson ordinance is incorporated 
as Section 5 of the Composite Model Ordinance on page 63 in the 
Appendix. 

The Tucson ordinance also recognizes another type of land use or 
obstruction not generally subjected to regulation under an airport 
zoning ordinance. This relates to the location of adjacent airports. 
Future airports must be located at proper distances from the existing 
airports which are being zoned. If not, traffic hazards will create serious 
obstructions to the future use of existing facilities. To insure proper 
spacing of airports with reference to Tucson Municipal Airport No. 2, 
the proposed ordinance places the following restrictions upon the 
establishment of future airports: (a) no airport of Class I or greater 
as defined in the ordinance may be established within a radius of 8 
miles unless a permit is applied for and granted; (b) the minimum 
distance between the Tucson airport and other airports is established 
at 5, 6, 7 or 8 miles depending on whether the other airport is in Class 
I, II, III or IV, respectively; (c) variances from the restrictions 
stated may be allowed where unnecessary hardship would occur and 
where permitted variances would not be contrary to the public interest. 
These provisions of the Tucson ordinance are included in complete 
detail as Section 6 of the Composite Model Ordinance in the Appendix 
at page 63. 

The problem of future airport location is generally one for regional 
planning. In many instances, however, no machinery has been estab- 
lished for regional zoning and no steps have been taken to zone the 
location of future airports. Under these circumstances it is wise, as a 
precautionary measure, to include a provision in the particular airport 
zoning ordinance to prevent the hazardous location of future airports. 
Although there is no specific statutory authorization for this type of 
regulation, there should be little question as to the validity of a pro- 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 37 

vision of this nature. The Model Act, which has been adopted by 
Arizona, defines an "airport hazard" as "any structure or tree or use 
of land which obstructs the air space required for the flight of aircraft 
in landing or taking-off at an airport or is otherwise hazardous to 
such landing or taking-off of aircraft." This definition has also been 
included in the proposed Tucson ordinance. The establishment of an 
airport in unreasonable proximity to an existing airport certainly con- 
stitutes a land use which creates an obstruction and is otherwise hazard- 
ous to the use of present facilities. 

Nonconforming Uses. In accordance with the Model Act, Section 
6 of the Model Ordinance provides that the regulations shall not be 
given retroactive effect. This provision is incorporated in each of the 
other ordinances with minor variations. These variations pertain for 
the most part to the prescribed period within which nonconforming 
uses under construction must be completed in order to escape the 
restrictions imposed by the ordinance. There is no specific provision 
in the Model Act covering this situation, but Section 6 of the Model 
Ordinance states that the regulations adopted shall not apply to a non- 
conforming use under construction prior to the effective date of the 
ordinance, provided it is diligently prosecuted to completion within two 
years. The Iowa ordinance adopts a time limit of one year on such 
projects. The Wisconsin ordinance merely requires that the noncon- 
forming use under construction be diligently prosecuted to completion; 
no time limit on completion is prescribed. The Minnesota and Tucson 
ordinances omit this portion of Section 6 altogether. It would seem 
advisable from the standpoint of reasonableness to include in the 
ordinance some provision excepting nonconforming uses under con- 
struction at the time of adoption. 

In addition to the provisions of Section 6 of the Model Ordinance, 
the Iowa ordinance includes authority for marking or lighting existing 
nonconforming uses. This is in accordance with an express provision 
in the Iowa statute which has been previously noted. It applies both to 
completed structures and those under construction at the time of adop- 
tion. It consists of adding a proviso at the end of Section 6 in the 
following language: "provided, however, that the owner of any non- 
conforming structure or tree is hereby required to permit the city of 

, at the expense of such city, to install, operate, and 

maintain thereon such markers and lights as shall be deemed by such 
city to be necessary to indicate to the operators of aircraft in the 
vicinity of the airport, the presence of such airport hazards." 

Variances, Permits, and Hazard Marking and Lighting. The pro- 
visions regarding variances, issuance of permits and hazard marking 



38 AIRPORT ZONING 

and lighting are set out in Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Model Ordinance. 
The other ordinances contain various adaptations of these features. 
The Iowa, New York, and Wisconsin ordinances include the variance 
provisions under the sections relating to the Airport Zoning Board of 
Adjustment, Board of. Appeals, and Appeals and Review, respectively. 
If the enabling statute provides that the zoning restrictions shall apply 
where a nonconforming use has been abandoned or 80 percent de- 
stroyed, a similar provision should be included in the ordinance. 

The Tucson ordinance reflects an improvement in the arrangement 
followed in the Model Ordinance. Since variances and hazard marking 
and lighting are directly related to the issuance of permits, one section 
pertaining to permits includes all the provisions of Sections 7, 8, and 9 
of the Model Ordinance. 

Administrative Agency. Section 11 of the Model Ordinance pro- 
vides for the designation of the administrative agency to rule upon all 
applications for permits other than those relating to variances. The 
language of this Section is followed for the most part in the other 
ordinances. The Wisconsin ordinance contains an improved version 
which is much more explicit. It states that all applications for permits 
including variances shall be made to the administrative officer. It also 
specifies that the administrative officer shall provide the necessary 
application form. The separation of the functions of the administra- 
tive officer and the appeal board (Board of Adjustment) are main- 
tained by providing that applications for variances shall be forwarded 
to that body by the administrative officer. 

There is always a question regarding the selection of the admin- 
istrative officer or agency. It is the usual and preferable practice to 
designate the official who is currently engaged in the administration of 
the comprehensive zoning ordinance in the area. This will generally be 
the building inspector, city engineer, zoning inspector, etc., as the case 
might be. In some instances it may be necessary to create a separate 
administrative body whose sole function will be the administration of 
the airport zoning ordinance. This often occurs where a joint airport 
zoning authority has been created. Even in that case, however, it may 
be preferable to place the administration of the ordinance with an 
official of one of the political subdivisions participating in the creation 
of the joint airport zoning board. 

Appeals and the Board of Adjustment. Section 12 of the Model 
Ordinance creates the Board of Adjustment which serves as the ad- 
ministrative appeal body. This section defines its powers and composi- 
tion and authorizes the Board to promulgate necessary rules to govern 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 39 

its operations and procedures. The procedure for appealing to the 
Board of Adjustment is prescribed in Section 10 of the Model Ordi- 
nance. These provisions are incorporated in the other ordinances but 
the arrangements and organization vary. Among the variations is a 
combination of Sections 10 and 12 in a single section. The Iowa and 
New York ordinances include, in addition, the provisions relating to 
variances. 

The Minnesota ordinance includes several modifications which 
should be noted. In creating a Board of Adjustment, it establishes a 
qualification for membership by specifying that the " Board shall con- 
sist of five citizens who have been residents in the city for at least five 
years prior to their appointment." It also provides that the city clerk 
shall act as secretary to the Board and that the office of the city clerk 
shall be the office of the Board. This is a very practical solution of the 
problem of establishing an office for the Board. The local official to 
act as secretary and whose office is to serve as office of the Board may 
be varied depending on the particular circumstances. 

In some instances the local zoning board of appeals will be desig- 
nated as the administrative appeal body. In that case, the designation 
should be made by a separate provision adopted in lieu of Section 12. 
Xecessary changes should also be made in Section 10 regarding the 
procedure for processing appeals. 

When an airport zoning ordinance is adopted jointly by direct 
legislative action of two or more political subdivisions, special pro- 
vision must be made regarding the composition of the Board of Adjust- 
ment. Under these circumstances, the Iowa ordinance includes a pro- 
vision in substantially the following form: 

"An Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment is hereby established 

which shall consist of (7). . . members, two to be selected 

by the city council of the City of . , two to be selected by 

the city council of the City of . , two to be selected by the 

Board of Supervisors of the County of , and an addi- 
tional member who shall act as Chairman of the Board to be selected by 

a majority vote of the members selected by the Cities of , 

and , and the County of . The terms of 

the members of the Board shall be for five years except that when the 
Board shall first be created, of the members appointed by each City and 
the County, one shall be appointed for a term of two years and one for 
a term of four years." 

It should be noted that, under the Iowa statute, joint adoption of an 
airport zoning ordinance must be by direct action of the legislative 
bodies of the respective political units. There is no provision for 
creating a joint legislative body to act for the respective political sub- 
divisions as is provided by Section 3 (2) of the Model Act. In those 



40 AIRPORT ZONING 

jurisdictions which have followed the Model Act, the special provision 
quoted from the Iowa ordinance is not required since the Joint Airport 
Zoning Board will appoint all the members of the Board of Adjustment. 

Judicial Review. Section 13 of the Model Ordinance provides that 
appeal may be taken from a decision of the Board of Adjustment in 
accordance with the provisions of the enabling statute. The only varia- 
tion in the ordinances to note on this point is that contained in the 
Tucson ordinance. A detailed provision following substantially the 
language of the enabling statute (Section 11 of the Model Act) has 
been included. There may be some advantage to a detailed provision 
of this kind in that it obviates the necessity of turning to the statute to 
determine the conditions governing judicial review. 

Miscellaneous Provisions. An airport zoning ordinance should also 
include provisions relating to short title, definition of terms, penalties, 
conflicting regulations, severability, and effective date. These appear in 
Sections 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the Model Ordinance and do not 
require comment. 

The Tucson ordinance, pursuant to the enabling statute, includes an 
additional section governing the amendment procedure. It provides that 
amendments be made in accordance with the procedure established by 
law for the amendment of comprehensive zoning regulations. It seems 
advisable to include a section relating to the amendment procedure in 
order to obviate any questions on this point. 

Composite Model Ordinance. It has been the purpose of the 
foregoing comments to stress the more important variations which 
experience has produced in the adaptation of the NIMLO Model 
Ordinance in particular instances. In an effort to summarize the more 
desirable modifications, a so-called "Composite Model Airport Zoning 
Ordinance" has been prepared and is included in the Appendix at page 
63. It has been suggested entirely by the variations appearing in the 
several ordinances which have been studied; and is, therefore, a 
composite product of all. 

Creating a joint airport zoning board. In some circumstances it 
may be determined that a joint legislative body should be created 
pursuant to Section 3 (2) of the Model Act to promulgate necessary 
zoning regulations for an airport. When this is the case, each of the 
political subdivisions participating in the venture must adopt the neces- 
sary ordinance or resolution to authorize the creation of a joint airport 
zoning board. The Minnesota authorities have prepared a suggested 
ordinance for this purpose, and it is included in the Appendix at 
page 60. 



AIRPORT ZONING AND REGIONAL PLANNING 

Need for zoning airport locations. The problems encountered 
in airport zoning vary greatly with the location of the airport. If air- 
port sites were carefully selected in advance of imperative need, the 
problems of airport zoning would be considerably minimized, if not 
actually eliminated. Location of an airport in or near an area developed 
for industrial, commercial, and residential uses often creates imposing 
problems and expensive solutions. A considerable number of existing 
nonconforming uses will probably be encountered. Removal of these 
hazards in order to establish normal airport operations will entail heavy 
public expenditures. Height limitations upon future structures must be 
adopted with reference to general existing uses in the vicinity. The 
latter will also affect the size of the airport. An airport larger than 
otherwise needed may be required in order that planes may leave the 
airport boundaries at altitudes sufficiently safe with reference to exist- 
ing structures in the area. This, too, will substantially increase the 
cost incurred in establishing an airport. These additional costs could 
be avoided if there were sufficient advance planning of land uses for 
airports. 

There is another item of cost incident to the establishment of a 
major airport which might also be reduced. It is not a direct out-of- 
pocket cost although indirectly it has the same effect. This cost is 
represented by the depreciation in property values in the area sur- 
rounding the airport. A 1945 report of the Detroit Metropolitan Avia- 
tion Planning Authority is significant on this point. A survey was 
made to determine the proper location of a major airport in the 
Detroit area. In gauging the desirability of alternative locations, an 
estimate was made as to the probable effect of the airport upon 
property values in the vicinity of each site. At one site it was estimated 
that property values would be depreciated 74.4 percent within a 
radius of a one-half mile circle and 71 percent within the next one-half 
mile circle. Before considering the alleviating effect of possible me- 
chanical and engineering developments, it was estimated that the 
depreciation would amount in round figures to $13,000,000 at one site, 
and $6,200,000 at another. These figures were discounted to reflect 
anticipated technological improvements which would reduce the noise 
factor and other nuisance elements of airplane operation. On this 
basis the net depreciation for the two areas was placed at $5,739,400 
and $2,703,200, respectively. If these estimates fairly reflect pro- 
spective depreciation of surrounding property, it suggests a similar 



41 



42 AIRPORT ZONING 

downward adjustment of assessed valuations for local tax purposes 
and consequent reduction of tax revenues. It also raises a question as 
to whether surrounding property owners should bear this burden of 
depreciation of their property. From a purely equitable standpoint, 
perhaps they should not. Yet, it is unlikely that this would be con- 
sidered a taking of property requiring compensation of the property 
owners by the political subdivision establishing the airport. If it were, 
the cost would be prohibitive. 

The financial burdens upon the local governmental units and the 
individual property owners could be reduced to a minimum if a munici- 
pality or urban region projected its major airport requirements. By 
forecasting its future needs for terminal facilities, the community 
could select suitable and adequate major airport sites and reserve these 
areas by adopting comprehensive zoning regulations. This would re- 
quire the addition of "airport use districts" to the existing types of use 
districts included in comprehensive zoning plans. Current uses of land 
in the airport use districts would be allowed to the extent that there 
would be no impairment of the future availability of the designated 
airport sites. Surrounding areas would also be zoned for uses con- 
sistent with the subsequent establishment of an airport. Zoning in 
advance of the location of an airport would result in the develop- 
ment of land uses in the surrounding areas harmonious with the sub- 
sequent establishment and operation of an airport. There would be no 
hazards to eliminate; there would be no need to expand the area of the 
airport beyond ordinary requirements; and depreciation of property 
would be minimized since the surrounding areas would be developed in 
conformance with and in recognition of the future establishment of an 
airport. In fact, property values would stand to be enhanced rather 
than depreciated. 

The need for planning airport locations is not limited to major 
airport terminals, however. There is another pressing need for airport 
planning. This arises with the increased use of personal planes and the 
consequent necessity of providing small airports to accommodate the 
lighter and smaller craft within reasonable access of residential areas. 
Increased traffic of commercial planes at major airports has and will 
reduce the availability of those facilities for personal and light aircraft. 
In some areas this need for small plane accommodations has already 
reached demand proportions. Recent publicity has been given to a real 
estate development in California planned around a small airport to 
serve the residents of the area. The plan involves the location of 
streets and lots in such a manner as to permit residents to taxi their 
planes from the airport to their homes. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 43 

Community planning for airport facilities in residential and agri- 
cultural areas has recently been propounded by the Chamber of 
Commerce of Kansas City, Missouri, and has created widespread 
interest. The proposed plan is designed to meet the airport needs of 
smaller craft in residential areas. The details of the plan have been 
formulated with the view of preserving and maintaining, if not actu- 
ally enhancing, property values in the areas in which established. The 
plan envisages something more than a mere landing field. It consists 
of a combination of parks and airports. Recreational facilities for the 
community would be established in conjunction with the airport. 
These would include playgrounds, swimming pools, picnic areas, golf 
links, and country clubs. In order to insure conformance of the airpark 
physical plant with residential property in the area, definite standards 
would be established for airpark structures. The construction standards 
imposed in any particular instance would depend upon the average 
assessed valuation of structures in the airpark zone. The greater the 
value of surrounding residences, the higher the standards imposed 
upon the airpark operator. 

The following requirements illustrate the conditions which would 
be imposed upon the grant of a permit to establish an airpark: build- 
ings must be kept in good repair; exteriors must be painted periodically; 
a predetermined percentage of the entire project cost must be applied 
to landscaping and beautification; all aircraft must be repaired inside 
hangars; and airpark structures must be of rigid construction (stone, 
concrete, brick, etc.) where the values of residential property in the 
area are sufficiently high. 

A number of private plane owners do maintain or contemplate 
acquiring their own private airports. But privately owned fields op- 
erated only for private use are always subject to possible abatement as 
nuisances by owners of adjacent property. Provision in comprehensive 
zoning ordinances for airports available to the public to meet the needs 
of private plane operators in residential areas would obviate this 
potential threat. 

Airport zoning for the future. Authorities estimate that the 
number of civil aircraft in this country will increase within the next 
decade from 30,000 to more than 400,000. Airport facilities must and 
will keep pace with this expansion. With the aid provided under the 
Federal Airport Act of 1946, it is expected that the number of civil 
airports in the United States will increase 100 percent over a seven- 
year period. With the matching of Federal funds by the local and state 
governments, $1,000,000,000 will be added to the public investment in 



44 AIRPORT ZONING 



airport facilities. Aviation is in its infancy and all factors point toward 
future development which will parallel in magnitude the rapid prog- 
ress which has been experienced in the more conventional forms of 
transportation. 

Airport zoning will make a very material contribution to the future 
development of aviation. But airport zoning for the future cannot be 
limited to its present function. In fact, airport zoning in its strict 
sense as considered herein, may be properly described as a stop-gap 
measure, serving the limited purpose of protecting existing facilities. 
After this purpose has been accomplished, it will no longer be required. 
Airport zoning in the future will be part and parcel of regional plan- 
ning. Through the operation of regional zoning, airport facilities will 
be adequately and economically selected and protected in advance. 

The selection of airport sites is by no means the only compelling 
factor in the background of regional planning. It is only a part of the 
whole fabric. Yet, in a very distinct sense it is the core of any regional 
plan. There are two principal reasons for this conclusion. First, the 
greatest incidence of urban development centers around transportation 
terminals; and airports are the major transportation terminals of the 
future. Second, we may draw upon the unfortunate experiences of the 
past by noting that some of the most plaguing problems currently 
facing our city planners arise out of the improper location of railroad 
terminals in our urban areas. Chicago is a notable example. The 
terminals required by railroads and airplanes, once established, are 
permanently situated. They cannot be shifted about with ease, con- 
venience, or economy. It is imperative then that airport facilities be 
located in advance in harmony with other existing and potential 
land uses. 

Two problems are presented which naturally fall within the ambit 
of regional planning. One is the selection of an adequate number of 
airport facilities of both the terminal and nonterminal classes to meet 
future requirements. The second is the necessity of avoiding improper 
spacing and overdevelopment of airport facilities. In some areas the 
proximity of air fields, one to the other, is hazardous and unduly re- 
stricts normal operation, development, and expansion. Regional plan- 
ning based on careful and thorough studies involving property values, 
land utilization, anticipated trends in air traffic, and all other pertinent 
factors will provide a satisfactory solution to both of the above 
problems. 

Future airport zoning as part of a regional plan requires the selec- 
lion of both major airport terminals and airport facilities for lighter, 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 45 

personal craft. The planning of the latter in conjunction with com- 
munity parks should provide a sound basis of selection. The selection 
of either will require extreme caution to insure validity. But these and 
other problems of regional zoning are no more insurmountable than 
those encountered in the embryo stages of comprehensive zoning for 
cities. The circumstances compelling and also sustaining the validity 
of comprehensive zoning on a city-wide basis apply in favor of regional 
zoning. 

Forward steps in the advance selection of airport sites through 
regional zoning have already been taken. King County, Washington, 
and Cook County, Illinois, have led the way. The post-war years have 
brought widespread interest and development in this area. It augurs 
well for the future of aviation and for the future of our communities. 
Forward-looking planning officials and authorities and civic and aero- 
nautical leaders have fostered and encouraged this development. They 
deserve the public gratitude and support. 



Appendix I 

MODEL STATE AIRPORT ZONING ACT 1 
November 7, 1944 

Civil Aeronautics Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce 
and National Institute of Municipal Law Officers 

An Act to empower municipalities and other political subdivisions to promulgate, 
administer, and enforce airport zoning regulations limiting the height of struc- 
tures and objects of natural growth, and otherwise regulating the use of property, 
in the vicinity of airports, and to acquire, by purchase, grant, or condemnation, 
air rights and other interests in land ; to provide penalties and remedies for viola- 
tions of this Act or of any ordinance or regulation made under the authority 
conferred herein ; and for other purposes. 2 
(Be it enacted, etc.) 

Section 1. Definitions — As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise 
requires: 

(1) "Airport" means any area of land or water designed and set aside for the 
landing and taking-off of aircraft and utilized or to be utilized in the interest 
of the public for such purposes. 

(2) "Airport hazard" means any structure or tree or use of land which ob- 
structs the air space required for the flight of aircraft in landing or taking-off at 
an airport or is otherwise hazardous to such landing or taking-off of aircraft. 

(3) "Airport hazard area" means any area of land or water upon which an 
airport hazard might be established if not prevented as provided in this Act. 

(4) "Political subdivision" means any municipality, city, town, village, 
borough, or county. 3 

1 This Model Act is the fifth model airport zoning act to be drafted and recommended by 
the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, or both. 
The first and second, which were prepared by the NIMLO with CAA assistance, were issued 
in April 1939 and February 1940, respectively (see NIMLO Reports No. 42 and No. 59). The 
third, a revision of those model acts, dated January 6, 1941, was drafted by the CAA with the 
assistance of members of the Special Committee on Uniform Aeronautical Code of the National 
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, the General Counsel of the National 
Association of Real Estate Boards, and others, and was recommended by the CAA for several 
months. Subsequently, however, the CAA withdrew its support of that model act and joined the 
NIMLO in recommending the fourth model act, a variation of the CAA model of January 6, 
1941, which had been prepared by the NIMLO with CAA assistance and had been issued by 
the NIMLO under date of February 15, 1941. 

The present Model Act dated November 7, 1944, which is a revision of the CAA-NIMLO 
model act of February 15, 1941, has been drafted to improve that earlier draft in accordance 
with the recommendations of a conference held by the CAA in Washington, D.C., on Sep- 
tember 29, 1944, which was attended by several city attorneys, representatives of the Council 
of State Governments, and other experts on zoning or constitutional law. As so drafted, this 
model act has been approved by both the NIMLO and the CAA. It is recommended that this 
latest Model Act be enacted in all States and Territories lacking legislation which either is 
patterned upon one of the earlier model acts or is considered substantially equivalent and that 
all such legislation be amended to conform to this model in substance. . . . 

For an explanation of the purpose and scope of this Model Act and of the need for airport 
zoning, see the "interpretive statement" concerning the February 15, 1941, model act which is 
contained in the report of the Council of State Governments on "Suggested State War and 
Post-war Legislation for 1945," dated November 1, 1944. [This Model Act with footnotes has 
been taken from Appendix V of the pamphlet on Airport Planning for Urban Areas issued by 
the Civil Aeronautics Administration, June 1, 1945. A portion of this footnote relating to the 
adoptions of the Model Act as of November 7, 1944 has been deleted.] 

2 Tliis suggested title should be altered as may be necessary to meet the usages and legal 
requirements of each State in which the Act is adopted. 

'■'■ In each State adopting the Act, this definition should be expanded to include any addi- 
tional types or classes of political subdivisions, governmental agencies, or public corporations 
of that State having legislative authority to establish or operate airports, such as airport dis- 
tricts, port authorities, or park districts. 

46 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 47 

(5) "Person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, com- 
pany, association, joint stock association, or body politic, 4 and includes any trustee, 
receiver, assignee, or other similar representative thereof. 

(6) "Structure" means any object constructed or installed by man, including, 
but without limitation, buildings, towers, smokestacks, and overhead transmission 
lines. 

(7) "Tree" means any object of natural growth. 

Section 2. Airport hazards contrary to public interest. 

It is hereby found that an airport hazard endangers the lives and property of 
users of the airport and of occupants of land in its vicinity, and also, if of the 
obstruction type, in effect reduces the size of the area available for the landing, 
taking-off, and maneuvering of aircraft, thus tending to destroy or impair the 
utility of the airport and the public investment therein. Accordingly, it is hereby 
declared: (a) That the creation or establishment of an airport hazard is a public 
nuisance and an injury to the community served by the airport in question; (b) that 
it is therefore necessary in the interest of the public health, public safety, and 
general welfare that the creation or establishment of airport hazards be prevented; 
and (c) that this should be accomplished, to the extent legally possible, by exer- 
cise of the police power, without compensation. It is further declared that both the 
prevention of the creation or establishment of airport hazards and the elimination, 
removal, alteration, mitigation, or marking and lighting of existing airport hazards 
are public purposes for which political subdivisions may raise and expend public 
funds and acquire land or property interests therein. 

Section 3. Power to adopt airport zoning regulations. 5 

(1) In order to prevent the creation or establishment of airport hazards, every 
political subdivision having an airport hazard area within its territorial limits may 
adopt, administer, and enforce, under the police power and in the manner and 
upon the conditions hereinafter prescribed, airport zoning regulations for such 
airport hazard area, which regulations may divide such area into zones, and, 
within such zones, specify the land uses permitted and regulate and restrict the 
height to which structures and trees may be erected or allowed to grow. 

(2) Where an airport is owned or controlled by a political subdivision and any 
airport hazard area appertaining to such airport is located outside the territorial 
limits of said political subdivision, the political subdivision owning or controlling 
the airport and the political subdivision within which the airport hazard area is 
located may, by ordinance or resolution duly adopted, create a joint airport zoning 
board, which board shall have the same power to adopt, administer and enforce air- 
port zoning regulations applicable to the airport hazard area in question as that 
vested by subsection (1) in the political subdivision within which such area is 
located. Each such joint board shall have as members two representatives appointed 
by each political subdivision participating in its creation and in addition a chairman 
elected by a majority of the members so appointed. 6 

4 In the case of a State in which the term "body politic" would not include the State 
itself and any of its governmental agencies, an appropriate term or terms should be added to 
this definition bringing any such public agency within its coverage. 

5 For a comprehensive survey of court decisions and legal writings on the law of airport 
zoning and an analysis of the legal principles upon which such zoning is based, see Airports 
and the Courts, published by the NIMLO in August 1944. 

e It is suggested that each State consider the desirability of adding to this Section an 
additional subsection reading substantially as follows: 

"(3) If, in the judgment of a political subdivision owning or controlling an airport, the 
political subdivision within which is located an airport hazard area appertaining to that airport, 
has failed to adopt or enforce reasonably adequate airport zoning regulations for such area 
under subsection (1) and if that political subdivision has refused to join in creating a joint 
airport zoning board as authorized in subsection (2), the political subdivision owning or con- 
trolling the airport may itself adopt, administer, and enforce airport zoning regulations for the 



48 AIRPORT ZONING 

Section 4. Relation to comprehensive zoning regulations. 

(1) Incorporation. — In the event that a political subdivision has adopted, or 
hereafter adopts, a comprehensive zoning ordinance regulating, among other things, 
the height of buildings, any airport zoning regulations applicable to the same area 
or portion thereof, may be incorporated in and made a part of such comprehensive 
zoning regulations, and be administered and enforced in connection therewith. 

(2) Conflict. In the event of conflict between any airport zoning regulations 
adopted under this Act and any other regulations applicable to the same area, 
whether the conflict be with respect to the height of structures or trees, the use of 
land, or any other matter, and whether such other regulations were adopted by the 
political subdivision which adopted the airport zoning regulations or by some other 
political subdivision, the more stringent limitation or requirement shall govern and 
prevail. 

Section 5. Procedure for adoption of zoning regulations. 

(1) Notice and hearing. No airport zoning regulations shall be adopted, 
amended, or changed under this Act except by action of the legislative body of the 
political subdivision in question, or the joint board provided for in Section 3 
(2), after a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and 
citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. At least 15 days' notice of the hear- 
ing shall be published in an official paper, or a paper of general circulation, in the 
political subdivision or subdivisions in which is located the airport hazard area to 
be zoned. 7 

(2) Airport zoning commission. Prior to the initial zoning of any airport 
hazard area under this Act, the political subdivision or joint airport zoning board 
which is to adopt the regulations shall appoint a commission, to be known as the 
airport zoning commission, to recommend the boundaries of the various zones to 
be established and the regulations to be adopted therefor. Such commission shall 
make a preliminary report and hold public hearings thereon before submitting its 
final report, and the legislative body of the political subdivision or the joint airport 
zoning board shall not hold its public hearings or take other action until it has 
received the final report of such commission. Where a city planning commission 
or comprehensive zoning commission already exists, it may be appointed as the 
airport zoning commission. 

Section 6. Airport zoning requirements. 

(1) Reasonableness. All airport zoning regulations adopted under this Act 
shall be reasonable and none shall impose any requirement or restriction which is 
not reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Act. In determining 
what regulations it may adopt, each political subdivision and joint airport zoning 
board shall consider, among other things, the character of the flying operations 
expected to be conducted at the airport, the nature of the terrain within the airport 

airport hazard area in question. In the event of conflict between such regulations and any 
airport zoning regulations adopted by the political subdivision within which the airport hazard 
area is located, the regulations of the political subdivision owning or controlling the airport shall 
govern and prevail." 

In addition, it might be desirable in the case of some States, in order to ensure the adop- 
tion of adequate airport zoning regulations in all cases in which such airport approach protec- 
tion is necessary, that still another subsection be added authorizing an agency of the State 
government, sucli as the State aeronautics commission, to adopt airport zoning regulations for 
any airport hazard area for which adequate regulations are not adopted under the preceding 
ubse< tions. 

7 I f a State in which this Act is to be adopted has a statute authorizing the adoption of 
comprehensive zoning ordinances, this subsection might be revised to read substantially as 
follows: 

"In adopting, amending, and repealing airport zoning regulations under this Act, the 
political subdivision or joint airport zoning board shall follow the procedure prescribed by the 
laws of this State for the adoption, amendment, and repeal of comprehensive zoning regulations." 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 49 

hazard area, the character of the neighborhood, and the uses to which the property 
to be zoned is put and adaptable. 8 

(2) Nonconforming uses. No airport zoning regulations adopted under this 
Act shall require the removal, lowering, or other change or alteration of any 
structure or tree not conforming to the regulations when adopted or amended, 
or otherwise interfere with the continuance of any nonconforming use, except 
as provided in Section 7(3). 

Section 7. Permits and variances. 

(1) Permits. Any airport zoning regulations adopted under this Act may 
require that a permit be obtained before any new structure or use may be con- 
structed or established and before any existing use or structure may be sub- 
stantially changed or substantially altered or repaired. In any event, however, all 
such regulations shall provide that before any nonconforming structure or tree 
may be replaced, substantially altered or repaired, rebuilt, allowed to grow higher, 
or replanted, a permit must be secured from the administrative agency authorized 
to administer and enforce the regulations, authorizing such replacement, change or 
repair. No permit shall be granted that would allow the establishment or creation 
of an airport hazard or permit a nonconforming structure or tree or nonconform- 
ing use to be made or become higher or become a greater hazard to air navigation 
than it was when the applicable regulation was adopted or than it is when the 
application for a permit is made. 9 Except as provided herein, all applications for 
permits shall be granted. 

(2) Variances. Any person desiring to erect any structure, or increase the 
height of any structure, or permit the growth of any tree, or otherwise use his 
property in violation of airport zoning regulations adopted under this Act, may 
apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the zoning regulations in 
question. Such variances shall be allowed where a literal application or enforce- 
ment of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hard- 
ship and the relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest but do 
substantial justice and be in accordance with the spirit of the regulations and this 
Act: Provided, That any variance may be allowed subject to any reasonable con- 
ditions that the Board of Adjustment may deem necessary to effectuate the pur- 
poses of this Act. 

(3) Hazard marking and lighting. In granting any permit or variance under 
this Section, the administrative agency or Board of Adjustment may, if it deems 
such action advisable to effectuate the purposes of this Act and reasonable in the 
circumstances, so condition such permit or variance as to require the owner of 

8 The Civil Aeronautics Administration has issued "Airport Approach Standards" indi- 
cating the heights to which structures and other objects generally should be restricted in the 
vicinity of airports of different classes. Information as to such standards, as well as the con- 
sulting services of airport engineers in determining the approach requirements for a particular 
airport, may be obtained by any political subdivision upon request to that agency. 

y Where the law of the State adopting this Act will permit, it is suggested that provisions 
be added at this point reading substantially as follows: 

"Whenever the administrative agency determines that a nonconforming use or noncon- 
forming structure or tree has been abandoned or more than 80 percent torn down, destroyed, 
deteriorated, or decayed: (a) No permit shall be granted that would allow said structure or 
tree to exceed the applicable height limit or otherwise deviate from the zoning regulations, and 
(b) whether application is made for a permit under this subsection or not, the said agency may 
by appropriate action compel the owner of the nonconforming structure or tree, at his own 
expense, to lower, remove, reconstruct, or equip such object as may be necessary to conform to 
the regulations. If the owner of the nonconforming structure or tree shall neglect or refuse to 
comply with such order for 10 days after notice thereof, the said agency may proceed to have 
the object so lowered, removed, reconstructed, or equipped and assess the cost and expense thereof 
upon the object or the land whereon it is or was located. Unless such an assessment is paid 
within 90 days from the service of notice thereof on the agent or owner of such object or land, 

the sum shall bear interest at the rate of percent per annum until paid, and shall be 

collected in the same manner as are general taxes." 

If any such provisions are inserted, Section 6(2) should be modified to refer to Section 
7(1) as well as to Section 7(3). 



50 AIRPORT ZONING 

the structure or tree in question to permit the political subdivision, at its own 
expense, to install, operate, and maintain thereon such markers and lights as may 
be necessary to indicate to flyers the presence of an airport hazard. 

Section 8. Appeals. 10 

(1) Any person aggrieved, or taxpayer affected, by any decision of an ad- 
ministrative agency made in its administration of airport zoning regulations adopted 
under this Act, or any governing body of a political subdivision, or any joint air- 
port zoning board, which is of the opinion that a decision of such an administra- 
tive agency is an improper application of airport zoning regulations of concern 
to such governing body or board, may appeal to the Board of Adjustment author- 
ized to hear and decide appeals from the decisions of such administrative agency. 

(2) All appeals taken under this Section must be taken within a reasonable 
time, as provided by the rules of the Board, by filing with the agency from which 
the appeal is taken and with the Board, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds 
thereof. The agency from which the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the 
Board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from 
was taken. 

(3) An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed 
from, unless the agency from which the appeal is taken certifies to the Board, 
after the notice of appeal has been filed with it, that by reason of the facts stated 
in the certificate a stay would in its opinion, cause imminent peril to life or 
property. In such cases, proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by order 
of the Board on notice to the agency from which the appeal is taken and on due 
cause shown. 

(4) The Board shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of appeals, give 
public notice and due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same within 
a reasonable time. Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent 
or by attorney. 

(5) The Board may, in conformity with the provisions of this Act, reverse 
or affirm wholly or partly, or modify, the order, requirement, decision, or de- 
termination appealed from and make such order, requirement, decision, or de- 
termination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the 
administrative agency from which the appeal is taken. 

Section 9. Administration of airport zoning regulations. 

All airport zoning regulations adopted under this Act shall provide for the 
administration and enforcement of such regulations by an administrative agency 
which may be an agency created by such regulations, or any official, board, or other 
existing agency of the political subdivision adopting the regulations, or of one of 
the political subdivisions which participated in the creation of the joint airport 
zoning board adopting the regulations, if satisfactory to that political subdivision, 
but in no case shall such administrative agency be or include any member of the 
Board of Adjustment. The duties of any administrative agency designated pur- 
suant to this Act shall include that of hearing and deciding all permits under 
Section 7(1), but such agency shall not have or exercise any of the powers herein 
delegated to the Board of Adjustment. 

Section 10. Hoard of Adjustment. 11 

(1) All airport zoning regulations adopted under this Act shall provide for a 
Board of Adjustment to have and exercise the following powers: 

'" If there is already in effect an act providing for appeals to zoning boards of adjustment 
or appeals, consideration should be j;iven the desirability of revising this. Section to conform 
thereto. 

" If the State has legislation which provides for the creation of boards of adjustment or 
appeals in connection with the adoption of comprehensive zoning regulations, consideration should 
he given tin- desirability of revising this Section to conform thereto. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 51 

(a) To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision, or de- 
termination made by the administrative agency in the enforcement of the air- 
port zoning regulations, as provided in Section 8. 

(b) To hear and decide any special exceptions to the terms of the airport 
zoning regulations upon which such Board may be required to pass under such 
regulations. 

(c)To hear and decide specific variances under Section 7(2). 

(2) Where a zoning board of appeals or adjustment already exists, it may be 
appointed as the Board of Adjustment. Otherwise, the Board of Adjustment shall 
consist of five members, each to be appointed for a term of 3 years 12 by the 
authority adopting the regulations and to be removable by the appointing authority 
for cause, upon written charges and after public hearing. 

(3) The concurring vote of a majority of the members of the Board of 
Adjustment shall be sufficient to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or de- 
termination of the administrative agency, or to decide in favor of the applicant 
on any matter upon which it is required to pass under the airport zoning regu- 
lations, or to effect any variation in such regulations. 

(4) The Board shall adopt rules in accordance with the provisions of the 
ordinance or resolution by which it was created. Meetings of the Board shall be 
held at the call of the chairman and at such other times as the Board may de- 
termine. The chairman, or in his absence the acting chairman, may administer 
oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. All hearings of the Board shall be 
public. The Board shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each 
member upon each question, or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, 
and shall keep records of its examinations and other official actions, all of which 
shall immediately be filed in the office of the Board and shall be a public record. 

Section 11. Judicial review. 13 

(1) Any person aggrieved, or taxpayer affected, by any decision of a Board 
of Adjustment, or any governing body of a political subdivision or any joint air- 
port zoning board which is of the opinion that a decision of a Board of Adjust- 
ment is illegal, may present to the court a verified petition setting forth that the 
decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. 
Such petition shall be presented to the court within 30 days after the decision is 
filed in the office of the Board. 

(2) Upon presentation v of such petition the court may allow a writ of cer- 
tiorari directed to the Board of Adjustment to review such decision of the 
Board. The allowance of the writ shall not stay proceedings upon the decision 
appealed from, but the court may, on application, on notice to the Board, and on 
due cause shown, grant a restraining order. 

(3) The Board of Adjustment shall not be required to return the original 
papers acted upon by it, but it shall be sufficient to return certified or sworn copies 
thereof or of such portions thereof as may be called for by the writ. The return 
shall concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to 
sho.w the grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be verified. 

(4) The court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside 

12 If it is desired that the terms of the members of the Board overlap, provision should be 
made therefor. 

13 If there is already in effect an act providing for appeals from the decisions of zoning 
boards of adjustment or appeals, consideration should be given the desirability of revising this 
Section to conform thereto. In addition, if it is not the law of the State that persons aggrieved 
by a law or regulation must exhaust the statutory remedies provided for such cases before 
seeking relief in the courts, it is recommended that a section or subsection be added requiring 
any person aggrieved by any airport zoning regulations adopted under the Act or by any decision 
of an administrative agency made in administering any such regulations, to apply for a permit, 
exception, or variance, or appeal to the Board of Adjustment, and exhaust the remedies provided 
for in the Act, before availing himself of the right to petition a court provided by this Section. 



U, OF ILL UB. 



52 AIRPORT ZONING 

the decision brought up for review, in whole or in part, and if need be, to order 
further proceedings by the Board of Adjustment. The findings of fact of the 
Board, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be accepted by the court as con- 
clusive, and no objection to a decision of the Board shall be considered by the court 
unless such objection shall have been urged before the Board, or, if it was not so 
urged, unless there were reasonable grounds for failure to do so. 

(5) Costs shall not be allowed against the Board of Adjustment unless it 
appears to the court that it acted with gross negligence, in bad faith, or with 
malice, in making the decision appealed from. 

(6) In any case in which airport zoning regulations adopted under this Act, 
although generally reasonable, are held by a court to interfere with the use or 
enjoyment of a particular structure or parcel of land to such an extent, or to be 
so onerous in their application to such a structure or parcel of land as to con- 
stitute a taking or deprivation of that property in violation of the Constitution of 
this State or the Constitution of the United States, such holding shall not affect 
the application of such regulations to other structures and parcels of land. 14 

Section 12. Enforcement and remedies. 

Each violation of this Act or of any regulations, orders, or rulings promul- 
gated or made pursuant to this Act, shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be 

punishable by a fine of not more than $ . or imprisonment for not 

more than . . days or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each day 

a violation continues to exist shall constitute a separate offense. 13 In addition, the 
political subdivision or agency adopting zoning regulations under this Act may 
institute in any court of competent jurisdiction, an action to prevent, restrain, 
correct or abate any violation of this Act, or of airport zoning regulations adopted 
under this Act, or of any order or ruling made in connection with their adminis- 
tration or enforcement, and the court shall adjudge to the plaintiff such relief, by 
way of injunction (which may be mandatory) or otherwise, as may be proper 

14 It has been suggested that provisions be included in this Model Act giving a landowner 
a right to compensation where the application of airport zoning regulations to his property 
otherwise would constitute an unconstitutional taking of his property, and prescribing the pro- 
cedure to be followed in obtaining such compensation. It appears that several such procedures 
might be devised, including: (1) The bringing of a court action by the landowner for damages; 
and (2) the filing of a claim for compensation with the Board of Adjustment, with the Board 
either (a) making the award itself, subject to appeal to a court, or (b) determining merely that 
compensation is due, the effect of such a decision being to require the political subdivision to 
bring condemnation proceedings as authorized in Section 13. 

The principal advantages to be gained by so providing for compensation where a zoning 
regulation is too great an invasion of private property rights is that this would go far to prevent 
the invalidation of any such regulation and permit the imposition of zoning restrictions as 
stringent as necessary to prevent the establishment of any airport hazard, regardless of their 
effect upon the property owners. However, the inclusion of any such provisions would make 
those political subdivisions that adopted regulations liable for damages which they could not 
foresee or estimate with any great degree of accuracy, which might well outweigh the advantages 
noted. Largely for this reason, no provisions such as those suggested have been included in this 
Model Act. 

As a result, if any regulation adopted under this Act attempted to impose a restriction 
upon any particular property which could not be imposed without compensation, the remedy 
available to the landowner would be to bring suit to have it declared unconstitutional and 
invalid, rather than an action for damages. This would leave it to the political subdivision or 
owner of the airport to acquire property interests in the property in question under Section 13, 
which might be deferred until this should become necessary to prevent the threatened creation 
of an airport hazard. 

While it will therefore be necessary that any airport zoning regulations adopted under this 
Act be carefully formulated to the end that they may be generally reasonable in their application 
to the property zoned, the inclusion of this subsection {(>) should help to prevent invalidation of 
the entire ordinance or resolution, or even any particular section thereof, where it is held 
unreasonable in its application to a particular structure or parcel of land. 

'■ It is possible that this provision may have to be modified in some States to meet con- 
stitutional requirements. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 53 

under all the facts and circumstances of the case, in order fully to effectuate the 
purposes of this Act and of the regulations adopted and orders and rulings made 
pursuant thereto. 

Section 13. Acquisition of air rights. 

In any case in which (1) it is desired to remove, lower, or otherwise terminate 
a nonconforming structure or use; or (2) the approach protection necessary can- 
not, hecause of constitutional limitations, be provided by airport zoning regulations 
under this Act; or (3) it appears advisable that the necessary approach protection 
be provided by acquisition of property rights rather than by airport zoning 
regulations, the political subdivision within which the property or nonconforming 
use is located or the political subdivision owning the airport or served by it may 
acquire, by purchase, grant, or condemnation in the manner provided by the law 
under which political subdivisions are authorized to acquire real property for 
public purposes, 16 such air right, avigation easement, or other estate or interest 
in the property or nonconforming structure or use in question as may be necessary 
to effectuate the purposes of this Act. 

Section 14. Severability. 

If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or cir- 
cumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the provisions or 
applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision 
or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared to be 
severable. 

Section 15. Short title. 

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Airport Zoning Act." 

Section 16. Repeal. 

All acts or parts of acts which are inconsistent with the provisions of this 
Act are hereby repealed. 17 

Section 17. Effective date. 

This Act shall take effect 



16 If the State does not have a general statute covering the procedure to be followed by 
political subdivisions in condemning land or has statutes authorizing more than one condemnation 
procedure for political subdivisions, this provision should be altered to refer to the particular 
statutory provisions which are to govern. 

17 Consideration should be given the question whether the repeal should refer to specific 
acts. Generally speaking, if there is already in effect an act providing for the protection of 
airport approaches by the zoning method, express provision should be made for its repeal. 



54 



AIRPORT ZONING 



Appendix II 
CURRENT ENABLING STATUTES FOR AIRPORT ZONING 1 



Jurisdiction 
Alabama . 
Alaska 
Arizona 
Arkansas . 
Connecticut 
Florida 
Georgia 
Hawaii 
Idaho . 
Illinois 
Indiana 
Iowa . 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan . 

Minnesota 
Mississippi 
Montana . 
Nebraska . 
Nevada 
New Hampshire 
New Mexico 
New York 
North Carolina 
North Dakota 
Ohio . . . 
Oklahoma 
Oregon 

Pennsylvania 
Rhode Island 
South Dakota 
Tennessee 

Texas . 

Utah . . . 
Vermont . 
Washington 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 



Citation 
Ala. Laws 1945, Act 402. 
Alaska Laws 1943, c. 23. 
Ariz. Laws 1945 1st Spec. Sess., c. 15. 

Ark. Dig. Stat. (Pope, Supp. 1944) Mun. Corp., 18, p. 979. 
Conn. Gen. Stat. (1930) Sec. 3096. 
Fla. Laws 1945, c. 23079 (No. 565). 
Ga. Laws 1946 Adj. Sess. Pt. I, Tit. V, No. 558. 
Hawaii Laws 1945, c. 182. 
Idaho Laws 1947, c. 130. 
111. Rev. Stat. (1947) c. 15^, Sec. 48.1-48.37. 
Ind. Stat. Ann. (Burns, Supp. 1947) Sec. 14-422. 
Iowa Code (1946) Sec. 329.1-329.15. (Amended by Iowa 

Laws 1947, c. 182). 
Kan. Laws 1947, c. 13. 
Ky. Laws 1946, c. 49. 

La. Gen. Stat. Ann. (Dart, Supp. 1947) Sec. 27.40-27.50. 
Me. Rev. Stat. (1944) c. 21, Sec. 8-16. 
Md. Laws Extraord. Sess. 1944, c. 13. 
Mass. Ann. Laws (Supp. 1945) c. 90, Sec. 40A-45. 
Mich. Stat. Ann. (Henderson, Supp. 1947) Sec. 10.202, 

10.227-10.229, 10.232, 10.251-10.256. 
Minn. Stat. (1945) Sec. 360.061-360.076. 
Miss. Code Ann. (1942) Sec. 7540, 7545. 
Mont. Laws 1947, c. 287. 

Neb. Rev. Stat. (Supp. 1945) Sec. 3-301 to 3-333. 
Nev. Laws 1947, c. 205. 
N. H. Rev. Laws (1942) c. 51, Sec. 78-87. 
N. M. Stat. Ann. (1941) Sec. 47-201 to 47-210. 
General Municipal Law, Sec. 355-356. 
N. C. Gen. Stat. (Michie, 1943) Sec. 63-29 to 63-37. 
N. D. Laws 1945, c. 40. 

Ohio Gen. Code Ann. (Page, 1945) Sec. 6310-42. 
Okla. Stat. Ann. (Supp. 1947) tit. 3, Sec. 101-115. 
Ore. Comp. Laws Ann. (Supp. 1944-1947) Sec. 45-5b01 to 

45-5M4. 
Pa. Stat. Ann. (Purdon, Supp. 1947) tit. 2, Sec. 1550-1563. 



c. 1743. 

c. 2. 

(Williams, Supp. 1947) Sec. 2726.47- 



R. I. Laws 1946, 
S. D. Laws 1943, 
Tenn. Code Ann. 

2726.61. 
Tex. Ann. Rev. Civ. Stat. (Vernon, 1947) art. 46e-l to 

46e-15. 
Utah Laws 1945, c. 10. 
Vt. Laws 1945, Act No. 50. 
Wash. Rev. Stat. Ann. (Remington, Supp. 1945) Sec. 2722- 

15 to 2722-29. 
Wis. Laws 1945, c. 235; 
Wyo. Comp. Stat. Ann. 



c. 471. Wis. Laws 1947, c. 486. 
(1945) Sec. 33-301 to 33-303. 



1 This list includes only those statutes which have general application throughout the 
jurisdiction. Statutes authorizing airport zoning in limited areas have been omitted. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 55 

Appendix III 

MODEL AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCE 

(September, 1945) 

National Institute of Municipal Law Officers 

AxN ORDINANCE REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE HEIGHT 
OF STRUCTURES AND OBJECTS OF NATURAL GROWTH, AND 
OTHERWISE REGULATING THE USE OF PROPERTY, IN THE 

VICINITY OF THE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BY 

CREATING AIRPORT APPROACH AND TURNING ZONES AND 
ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES THEREOF; PROVIDING 
FOR CHANGES IN THE RESTRICTIONS AND BOUNDARIES OF 
SUCH ZONES; DEFINING CERTAIN TERMS USED HEREIN; 
PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT; ESTABLISHING A BOARD 
OF APPEALS; AND IMPOSING PENALTIES. 1 

In pursuance of the authority conferred by Chapter of the Public Laws 

of 2 and for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, and 

general welfare 3 of the inhabitants of , by preventing the crea- 
tion or establishment of airport hazards, thereby protecting the lives and property 

of users of the Municipal Airport and of occupants of land 

in its vicinity and preventing destruction or impairment of the utility of the Air- 
port and the public investments therein; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE OF THE , 

, as follows 4 : 

Section 1. Short Title. 

This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Airport Zoning Ordi- 
nance of the " 

Section 2. Definitions. 

As used in this ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires: 

(1) "Airport" means the Municipal Airport. 

(2) "Airport hazard" means any structure or tree or use of land which 
obstructs the airspace required for the flight of aircraft in landing or taking-off 
at the airport or is otherwise hazardous to such landing or taking-off of aircraft. 

(3) "Nonconforming use" means any structure, tree, or use of land which 
does not conform to a regulation prescribed in this ordinance or an amendment 
thereto, as of the effective date of such regulations. 

(4) "Person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, com- 
pany, association, joint stock association, or body politic, and includes any trustee, 
receiver, assignee, or other similar representative thereof. 

(5) "Structure" means any object constructed or installed by man, including, 
but without limitation, buildings, towers, smoke-stacks, and overhead transmission 
lines. 

(6) "Landing area" means the area of the Airport used for the landing, 
take-off, or taxiing of aircraft. 

(7) "Tree" means any object of natural growth. 

1 This title may need to be revised to meet the usages and legal requirements of your State, 
and the political subdivision in question. 

2 This citation should be made to conform to the usual method of citing your State's laws. 

3 If other terms are commonly used by the courts of your State in defining the limits of 
the police power, such as "convenience" or "prosperity," they should be added here. 

4 The form of enacting clause commonly used by the political subdivision in question 
should be employed. 



56 AIRPORT ZONING 

Section 3. Zones. 

In order to carry out the purposes of this ordinance all of the land within the 

boundaries of the and within miles of the landing area 

of the Airport, is hereby divided into airport approach zones and airport turning 
zones, the boundaries of which are shown on the Airport Ap- 
proach Plan numbered and dated , which is attached 

hereto and hereby made a part hereof. 

Section 4. Height Limits. 

Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, no structure or tree shall be 
erected, altered, allowed to grow, or maintained in any airport approach zone or 
airport turning zone to a height in excess of the height limit herein established for 
such zone. For purposes of this regulation, the following height limits are hereby 
established for each of the zones in question: 



Section 5. Use Restrictions. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance, no use may be made 
of land within any airport approach zone or airport turning zone, in such a manner 
as to create electrical interference with radio communication between the Airport 
and aircraft, make it difficult for flyers to distinguish between airport lights and 
others, result in glare in the eyes of flyers using the Airport, impair visibility in 
the vicinity of the Airport, or otherwise endanger the landing, taking-off, or 
maneuvering of aircraft. 5 

Section 6. Nonconforming Uses. 

The regulations prescribed in Sections 4 and 5 of this ordinance shall not be 
construed to require the removal, lowering, or other change or alteration of any 
structure or tree not conforming to the regulations as of the effective date hereof, 
or otherwise interfere with the continuance of any nonconforming use. Nothing 
herein contained shall require any change in the construction, alteration, or in- 
tended use of any structure, the construction or alteration of which was begun 
prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and is diligently prosecuted and com- 
pleted within two years thereof. 

Section 7. Variances. 

Any person desiring to erect any structure or increase the height of any 
structure, or permit the growth of any tree, or use his property, not in accordance 
with the regulations prescribed in this ordinance, may apply for a variance there- 
from. Such variance shall be allowed where a literal application or enforcement 
of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and 
the relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest but do substantial 
justice and be in accordance with the spirit of this ordinance. 

Section 8. Permits. 

( 1 ) Future Uses. No material change shall be made in the use of land, and 
no structure or tree shall be erected, altered, planted, or otherwise established, in 

s If it is desired that certain particular land uses be forbidden within certain airport 
approach or turning zones, it is suggested that provisions be inserted in this Section, imme- 
diately following the heading, reading substantially as follows: "Except as otherwise provided 
in tliis ordinance, it shall be unlawful to put any land located within an airport approach zone 
or airport turning zone to any use hereby forbidden in such zone. The land uses forbidden in 
the various airport approach and turning zones are as follows: 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 57 

any airport approach zone or airport turning zone, unless a permit therefor shall 
have been applied for and granted. Each such application shall indicate the purpose 
for which the permit is desired, with sufficient particularity to permit it to be 
determined whether the resulting use, structure, or tree would conform to the 
regulations herein prescribed. If such determination is in the affirmative, the 
permit applied for shall be granted. 

(2) Existing Uses. Before any existing use, structure or tree may ,be re- ' 
placed, substantially altered or repaired, rebuilt, allowed to grow higher, or re- 
planted, within any airport approach zone or airport turning zone, a permit must 
be secured authorizing such replacement, change or repair. No such permit shall 
be granted that would allow the establishment or creation of an airport hazard or 
permit a nonconforming use, structure, or tree to be made or become higher, 
or become a greater hazard to air navigation, than it was on the effective date of 
this ordinance or than it is when the application .for a permit is made. Except 
as indicated, all applications for a permit for replacement, change or repair of 
existing use, structure, or tree shall be granted. 

Section 9. Hazard Marking and Lighting. 

Any permit or variance granted under Section 7 or 8 may, if such action is 
deemed advisable to effectuate the purposes of this ordinance and reasonable in the 
circumstances, be so conditioned as to require the owner of the structure or tree 
in question to permit the City, at its own expense, to install, operate, and main- 
tain thereon such markers and lights as may be necessary to indicate to flyers the 
presence of an airport hazard. 

Section 10. Appeals. 

(1) Any person aggrieved, or taxpayer affected, by any decision of the 

made in its administration of this ordinance, or the 

of , if of the opinion that a decision of the . . is an im- 
proper application of this ordinance, may appeal to the Board of Adjustment for 
which provision is made in Section 12. 

(2) All appeals taken under this Section must be taken within a reasonable 

time, as provided by the rules of the Board, by filing with the . . , and 

with the Board, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The . 

shall forthwith transmit to the Board all the papers constituting the record upon 
which the action appealed from was taken. 

(3) An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed 

from, unless the certifies to the Board, after the notice of appeal 

has been filed with it, that by reason of the facts stated in the certificate a stay 
would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such case, pro- 
ceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by order of the Board on notice to the 
and on due cause shown. 

(4) The Board shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal, give 
public notice and due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same within 
a reasonable time. Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent 
or by attorney. 

(5) The Board may, in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance, 
reverse, or affirm, wholly or partly, or modify, the order, requirement, decision, 
or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision, 
or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers 
of the . 

(6) The Board shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law 
giving the facts upon which it acted and its legal conclusions from such facts in 
reversing, or affirming, or modifying any order, requirement, decision, or deter- 
mination which comes before it under the provisions of this ordinance. 



58 AIRPORT ZONING 

(7) The concurring vote of a majority of the members of the Board shall 
be sufficient to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or determination of the 

, or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which 

it is required to pass under this ordinance, or to affect any variation in this 
ordinance. 

Section 11. Administrative Agency. 

The 6 is hereby designated the administrative agency charged 

with the duty of administering and enforcing the regulations herein prescribed. 

The duties of the shall include that of hearing and deciding all 

permits under Section 8, but the shall not have or exercise any of 

the powers or duties herein delegated to the Board of Adjustment. 

Section 12. Board of Adjustment. 

(1) There is hereby created a Board of Adjustment 7 to have and exercise 
the following powers: 

(a) To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision, or de- 
termination made by the in the enforcement of this ordinance; 

(b) To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of this ordinance upon 
which such Board may be required to pass by subsequent ordinances ; 

(c) To hear and decide specific variances under Section 7. 

(2) The Board of Adjustment shall consist of five members, each to be ap- 
pointed for a term of 3 years and to be removable for cause by the 8 

upon written charges and after public hearing. In the first instance, one member 
shall be appointed for a term of 3 years, two for a term of 2 years, and two for 
a term of 1 year. Thereafter each member appointed shall serve for a term of 
3 years or until his successor is duly appointed and qualified. 

(3) The Board shall adopt rules for its governance and procedure in harmony 
with the provisions of this ordinance. Meetings of the Board shall be held at the 
call of the Chairman and at such other times as the Board may determine. The 
Chairman, or in his absence the acting chairman, may administer oaths and compel 
the attendance of witnesses. All hearings of the Board shall be public. The Board 
shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon each 
question, or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating each fact, and shall keep 
records of its examinations and other official actions, all of which shall immedi- 
ately be filed in the office of the board and shall be a public record. 

Section 13. Judicial Review. 

Any person aggrieved, or taxpayer affected, by any decision of the Board 

of Adjustment, or the of the , may appeal to the 

court of as provided in Section of Chapter . 

of the Public Laws of 9 

Section 14. Penalties. 10 

Each violation of this ordinance or of any regulation, order, or ruling pro- 
mulgated hereunder shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $ or 

If the political subdivision in question has an Inspector of Buildings, it is suggested that 
he be designated the administrative agency for this ordinance. 

7 This provision may be omitted if the political subdivision in question has already estab- 
lished such a Board. In that event, however, this Section should grant the powers here set out 
to the existing Hoard. 

8 Indicate the proper appointing authority. 

9 Consideration should be given the desirability of setting forth this procedure here, or, 
as an alternative, attaching to all copies of this ordinance a copy of excerpts from the statute 
cited. 

10 It is possible that this Section may have to be modified to conform to the Constitution of 
your State. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 59 

imprisonment for not more than days, or both such fine and imprison- 
ment, and each day a violation continues shall be a separate offense. 

Section 15. Conflicting Regulations. 

Where this ordinance imposes a greater or more stringent restriction upon the 
use of land than is imposed or required by any other ordinance or regulation, the 
provisions of this ordinance shall govern. 

Section 16. Severability. 

If any of the provisions of this ordinance or the application thereof to any 
person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other pro- 
visions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the in- 
valid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are 
declared to be severable. 

Section 17. Effective Date. 

This ordinance shall take effect . 



Appendix IV 

(See pocket inside back cover for Zoning Map of Boeing Field Airport, 
City of Seattle and King County, Washington.) 



Appendix V 

Civil Aeronautics Administration Airport Approach Standards 
(Drawing No. 672; see pocket inside back cover) 

This drawing reflects the current airport approach standards of the Civil 
Aeronautics Administration. That agency is currently conducting a study pre- 
liminary to a revision of these standards. A draft of a proposed Technical Stand- 
ard Order, dated April 19, 1948, and entitled "Criteria for Determining Obstruc- 
tions to Air Navigation (Other Than Radio Towers)" has been circulated by the 
Civil Aeronautics Administration to the aeronautical industry for comments and 
suggestions. It is expected that a revised final draft of this order will be pre- 
pared and released in the near future. 



60 AIRPORT ZONING 

Appendix VI 

ZONES AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 

AN EXCERPT FROM 

MINNESOTA MODEL AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCE 1 

(With accompanying map and drawing; see pocket inside back cover) 

Section 2. Zones. 

Subdivision 1. Approach Zones for Instrument Runways. An airport ap- 
proach zone is established at each end of every airport runway designated for 
use for instrument landings or take-offs. Such zone shall comprise all the land 
embraced within the following lines: (1) a line one thousand feet long running 
at right angles to the center line of such runway five hundred feet on either side 
of the center line at the end of the (paved portion of the) runway ; A (2) a line 
four thousand feet long running at right angles to the projected center line of 
such runway two thousand feet on either side thereof at a distance two miles from 
the first line; 15 (3) two lines making the shortest connections between the ends of 
the above-described lines. 

Subdivision 2. Other Approach Zones. An airport approach zone is estab- 
lished at each end of every runway not designated for use for instrument landings 
or take-offs. Such zone shall be 500 feet wide at the end of the runway u and 
2500 feet wide at a distance of two miles from the end of the runway . E Otherwise 
the limits of the zone shall be measured as in the zone described in Subdivision 1 
of this Section. 

Subdivision 3. Turning Zones. An airport turning zone is hereby established 
embracing the area between each two airport approach zones. The outer boundary 
of such zones shall be a series of intersecting arcs completely around the airport, 1 " 
one being swung on a two-mile radius from the midway point of the inner boundary 
of each airport approach zone. 

[Subdivision 4. Map of Zones.] All zones established by this Section shall be 
as indicated on the map attached hereto and made a part hereof. 

Section 3. Height Zones. 

Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, no structure shall be con- 
structed, altered, or maintained, and no tree shall be allowed to grow to a height 
above the level of the airport in excess of the height limit in any airport approach 
or turning zone. The following height limits are hereby established: 

(a) Airport approach zones to instrument runways: one foot in height for 
each 40 feet in distance from the nearest point on the shortest boundary of such 
zone. 

(b) Airport approach zones to noninstrument runways: one foot in height 

for each 2 feet in distance from the nearest point on the shortest boundary 

of such zone. 

(c) Airport turning zones: 75 feet in height in the area within a distance of 
one-half mile of the nearest point on the boundary of the airport ; G in the area out- 
side such half-mile distance, 75 feet plus an additional one foot in height for 

each 2 feet in distance beyond a half-mile from the nearest point on 

the boundary of the airport. 

1 Issued by the Department of Aeronautics, State of Minnesota. For A,I3,C,D,E,F, and 
G, see drawing in pocket inside hack cover. 

2 The figure 20 should be inserted in case of Class I airports, and 30 for Class II, III, 
and IV airports. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 61 

Appendix VII 

ZONES AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 

AN EXCERPT FROM 

NEW YORK MODEL AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCE 1 

Section 3. Districts. 

For the purpose of this ordinance all of the land within the boundaries of the 
(particular municipality) and within two miles of the landing area of 



the Airport is hereby designated as the airport approach protection area and is di- 
vided into the districts shown on the Airport Approach Pro- 
tection Plan, numbered , dated , which is attached hereto 

and made a part hereof, and designated as follows: 

(1) AH-1 Districts: Airport approach districts, (designated by yellow). 

(2) AH-2 Districts: Airport transition districts, (designated by blue). 

(3) AH-3 Districts: Airport turning districts, (designated by brown). 

Section 4. Height Limits. 

Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance no structure may be erected 
or altered or any tree permitted to grow or be maintained to a height which would 
exceed the elevation of the end of the landing strip by a vertical distance hereby 
established for each of the following Districts: 

AH-1 District: (For Class III and larger airports) One-fortieth of the 
shortest horizontal distance from the structure or tree to the end of the landing 
strip within the approach to which the structure or tree is located. 

(For Class I and II airports) One-twentieth of the shortest 
horizontal distance from the structure or tree to the end of the landing strip within 
the approach to which the structure or tree is located. 

AH-2 District: One-seventh of the shortest horizontal distance from the 
structure or tree to the nearest edge of the contiguous AH-1 District or landing 
area ; all distance to be computed at right angles to the center line of the AH-1 
district or at right angles to the edge of the landing area, whichever the case may 
be ; said height to be exclusive of and in addition to the height permitted at the 
point from or to which the measurement was taken in the AH-1 district or landing 
area. Where alternate computations within the meaning of this definition can be 
made, the height shall be determined to be that which is the most restrictive. 

AH-3 District: One hundred fifty feet above (insert proper datum) 

Height Exceptions: Provisions herein contained shall not be construed to pre- 
vent erection of structure or growth of tree to a height of (insert permitted 

height) feet above the natural surface in any AH-1, AH-2, or AH-3 district. 

1 Issued by Bureau of Aviation, Department of Commerce, State of New York. 



62 AIRPORT ZONING 

Appendix VIII 

ZONES AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 

AN EXCERPT FROM 

PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR TUCSON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT No. 2 1 

(With accompanying map and drawings; see pocket inside back cover) 

Section 3. Zones and Map. 

(a) For the purpose of this ordinance, all of the land lying within an area 
of two miles of the landing area of the Airport is hereby divided into five (5) 
types of zones as follows: 

1. "L" — LANDING ZONES 

2. "AA" — APPROACH ZONES 

3. "LT" — LANDING TRANSITION ZONES 

4 „ AT „ _ APPROACH TRANSITION ZONES 
5. "T" — TURNING ZONES 

(b) The boundaries of these zones are hereby established as shown on a map 
entitled "Tucson Municipal Airport Zone Map" (dated) which accompanies and 
is hereby made part of this ordinance, and as the same may be amended and 
supplemented. 

Section 4. Height Limits. 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, no structure or tree 
shall be erected, altered, allowed to grow, or maintained in any zone created by this 
ordinance to a height in excess of the height limit hereby established for such 
zone. The datum plane for measurement of such heights, except as otherwise 
specified, shall be the elevation of the nearest point on the center line of the 
nearest runway. 

(b) The height limit for each type of zone is hereby established as follows: 

(1) "L" (LANDING ZONE) —Nothing above the datum plane, except as 
required and as necessary and incidental to airport operations or recommended by 
or in accord with the rules of the Civil Aeronautics Administration. 

(2) "AA" (APPROACH ZONE) —One foot of height for every forty (40) 
feet of the shortest distance the structure or tree is from the inner boundary of 
the approach zone or the line of such boundary extended. 

(3) "LT" (LANDING TRANSITION ZONE)— One foot of height for 
every seven (7) feet of the shortest distance the structure or tree is from the 
boundary of the nearest "L" zone. 

(4) "AT" (APPROACH TRANSITION ZONE)— The sum of (a) the 
height permitted in the adjoining approach zone for the same distance from the 
inner boundary thereof, plus (b) one (1) foot of height for each seven (7) feet 
such structure or tree is distant from the side boundary of the adjoining approach 
zone measured horizontally along a line perpendicular to the center line of the 
adjoining approach zone. 

(5) "T" (TURNING ZONE) — 150 feet. 



Prepared by the Pima County Post-war Planning Board and Airport Zoning Commission. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 63 

Appendix IX 

COMPOSITE MODEL AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCE 1 

AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES 

AND TREES AND THE USE OF PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY 

OF AIRPORT 

In pursuance of the authority conferred by Chapter of the Public Laws 

of and for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, 

and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of by pre- 
venting the creation or establishment of airport hazards, thereby protecting the 

lives and property of users of the Airport and of occupants of 

land in its vicinity and preventing destruction or impairment of the utility of the 

Airport and the public investment therein ; 

The (City Council) of do ordain as follows: 

Section 1. Short Title. 

This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the 

Airport Zoning Ordinance. 

Section 2. Definitions. 

As used in this ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires: 

(1) "Airport" means the Airport. 

(2) "Airport hazard" means any structure or tree or use of land which 
obstructs the airspace required for the flight of aircraft in landing or taking-off 
at the airport or is otherwise hazardous to such landing or taking-off of aircraft. 

(3) "Nonconforming use" means any structure or tree or use of land which 
does not conform to a regulation prescribed in this ordinance or an amendment 
thereto, as of the effective date of such regulations. 

(4) "Person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, com- 
pany, association, joint stock association or body politic, and includes any trustee, 
receiver, assignee, or other similar representative thereof. 

(5) "Structure" means any object constructed or installed by man, including, 
but without limitation, buildings, towers, smokestacks, and overhead transmis- 
sion lines. 

(6) "Tree" means any object of natural growth. 

(This section may be expanded, if necessary, to include additional terms.) 

Section 3. Zones and Map. 

(a) For the purpose of this ordinance, all of the land lying within an area of 

miles of the landing area of the Airport is hereby divided into 

types of zones as follows: 

[Indicate the zones by code letter designation and title. See provisions of 
Tucson ordinance, Appendix VIII, page 62. Also refer to color or other designa- 
tion identifying the particular zones on the zoning map. See New York ordinance, 
Appendix VII, page 61.] 

(b) The boundaries of these zones are hereby established as shown on a 

map entitled " Airport Zoning Map," dated , which 

accompanies and is hereby made part of this ordinance, and as the same may be 
amended and supplemented. 

Section 4. Height Limits. 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, no structure or tree 

1 See text, page 40, for statement with respect to the source of the provisions included in 
this suggested ordinance. 



64 AIRPORT ZONING 

shall be erected, altered, allowed to grow, or maintained in any zone created by 
this ordinance to a height in excess of the height limit hereby established for such 
zone. The datum plane for measurement of such heights, except as otherwise 
specified, shall be the elevation of the nearest point on the center line of the 
nearest runway. (The report on the proposed Tucson ordinance adds this word 
of caution: "Special aeronautical engineering consideration should be given to the 
full effect and meaning of the method proposed here for determining the base 
reference for elevation.") 

(b) The height limit for each type of zone is hereby established as follows: 
[Include specific height limitations for each of the respective zones established 
in Section 3. See provisions of Tucson ordinance, Appendix VIII, page 62.] 

Section 5. Use Restrictions. 

Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, it shall be unlawful to put any 
land located within any zone hereby created to any of the following prohibited 
uses: 

(1) Transformer stations 

(2) High power transmission lines 

(3) Manufacturing establishments or other uses which produce smoke inter- 
fering with the safe use of the Airport 

(4) All plants and businesses of every kind which emit or discharge gases 
and odors that would interfere with the health or safety of the public in the use 
of the Airport 

(5) Businesses or structures of any kind that may be detrimental or injurious 
to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public in the use of the Airport 

(6) Any other use which would create electrical interference with radio com- 
munication between the Airport and aircraft, make it difficult for flyers to dis- 
tinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of flyers 
using the Airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the Airport, or otherwise 
endanger the landing, taking-off, or maneuvering of aircraft. 

Section 6. Spacing Adjacent Airports. 

(a) Within a radius of eight (8) miles from the center of - . - 

Airport no airport of Class I or greater, as hereinafter defined, shall be established 
unless permit therefor shall have been applied for and granted, in accordance with 
the provisions of this ordinance. 

(b) Except as otherwise provided, the minimum distance between 

Airport and any other airport hereafter established, measured from center to 
center, shall be not less than provided in the following schedule: 

Class of Other Airport Distance from . Airport 

I 5 miles 

II 6 miles 

III 7 miles 

IV 8 miles 

(c) Airport classification for the purpose of this ordinance shall be in ac- 
cord with the following schedule: 

Length of Longest Runway Class 

Under 3300 I 

3300 ft. to 4300 ft II 

4300 ft. to 5300 ft Ill 

Over 5300 ft IV 

(<]) Exceptions to the spacing requirements hereinbefore provided in this 
Section may be granted by the Board of Adjustment, which is hereby authorized 
to allow lesser distances between Airport and any other air- 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 65 

port proposed to be established, but only after public hearing duly held in accord 
with the provisions of this ordinance, and where, owing to special conditions, the 
Board of Adjustment duly finds that a literal enforcement of these provisions 
would result in unnecessary hardship and such variance would not be contrary to 
the public interest. 

Prior to granting any such exception or variance, the Board of Adjustment 
shall, for the purpose of study and recommendation, refer the matter to the Civil 
Aeronautics Administration and to any aviation commission, airport zoning com- 
mission, and any local planning body having jurisdiction within the area affected. 

If any of the aforementioned bodies to whom the matter shall have been 
referred does not within forty-five (45) days transmit a report to the Board of 
Adjustment, then it shall be deemed to have approved the proposal, provided, 
however, that upon request of any said body, the Board of Adjustment shall grant 
a reasonable extension of such time. 

In granting such exception or variance the Board of Adjustment shall impose 
special conditions which will ensure that the public interest is maintained. 

Section 7. Existing Nonconforming Uses. 

(a) Regulations Not Retroactive. The regulations prescribed by this ordinance 
shall not be construed to require the removal, lowering, or other change or altera- 
tion of any structure or tree not conforming to the regulations as of the effective 
date hereof, or otherwise interfere with the continuance of any nonconforming use. 
Nothing herein contained shall require any change in the construction, alteration, 
or intended use of any structure, the construction or alteration of which was 
begun prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and is diligently prosecuted and 
completed within two years thereof. 

(b) Marking and Lighting. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of 
this Section, the owner of any nonconforming structure or tree is hereby required 
to permit the installation, operation, and maintenance thereon of such markers 

and lights as shall be deemed necessary by the (administrative officer) 

to indicate to the operators of aircraft in the vicinity of the Airport, the presence 
of such airport hazards. Such markers and lights shall be installed, operated, and 

maintained at the expense of the (City of ) (This 

subsection would be applicable in those jurisdictions whose enabling statutes 
authorize lighting and marking of existing nonconforming uses.) 

Section 8. Administrative Officer. 

It shall be the duty of the to administer and enforce the regu- 
lations prescribed herein. Applications for permits and variances shall be made to 

the upon a form furnished by him. Applications which are by 

this ordinance to be decided by the shall be promptly considered 

and granted or denied by him. Applications for action by the Board of Adjust- 
ment shall be forthwith transmitted by the to the Board for hear- 
ing and decision. (Insert in the blanks the title of the local officer who is to ad- 
minister the ordinance. It may be the zoning inspector, building inspector, city 
engineer, etc.) 

Section 9. Permits. 

(a) Future Uses. No material change shall be made in the use of land, 
and no structure or tree shall be erected, altered, planted, or otherwise established, 
in any zone hereby created, unless a permit therefor shall have been applied for 
and granted. Each such application shall indicate the purpose for which the permit 
is desired, with sufficient particularity to permit it to be determined whether the 
resulting use, structure, or tree would conform to the regulations herein prescribed. 
If such determination is in the affirmative, the permit shall be granted. 



66 AIRPORT ZONING 

(b) Existing Uses. Before any existing use, structure, or tree may be re- 
placed, substantially altered or repaired, rebuilt, allowed to grow higher, or re- 
planted, within any zone hereby created, a permit must be secured authorizing 
such replacement, change, or repair. No such permit shall be granted that would 
allow the establishment or creation of an airport hazard or permit a nonconform- 
ing use, structure, or tree to be made or become higher, or become a greater hazard 
to air navigation, than it was on the effective date of this ordinance or amendment, 
or than it is when the application for a permit is made. Except as indicated, all 
applications for such a permit shall be granted. 

(c) Nonconforming Uses Abandoned or Destroyed. Whenever the 

(administrative officer) determines that a nonconforming structure or tree 

has been abandoned or more than 80 percent torn down, physically deteriorated, 
or decayed, (a) no permit shall be granted that would allow such structure or tree 
to exceed the applicable height limit or otherwise deviate from the zoning regula- 
tions, and (b) whether application is made for a permit under this paragraph or 

not, the . . .(administrative officer) may by appropriate action compel the 

owner of the nonconforming structure or tree, at his own expense, to lower, 
remove, reconstruct, or equip such object as may be necessary to conform to the 
regulations or, if the owner of the nonconforming structure or tree shall neglect 

or refuse to comply with such an order after ten days' notice thereof, the . 

(administrative officer) may proceed to have the object so lowered, re- 
moved, reconstructed, or equipped, and assess the cost and expense thereof upon the 
object or the land whereon it is or was located. Unless such an assessment is paid 
within 90 days from the service of notice thereof on the agent or owner of such 

object or land, the sum shall bear interest at the rate of percent per 

annum until paid, and shall be collected in the same manner as are general taxes. 
Except as indicated herein, all applications for permits for replacement, change, or 
repair of nonconforming uses shall be granted. (This subsection would be ap- 
plicable only in jurisdictions which authorize this action in its enabling statute.) 

(d) Variances. Any person desiring to erect or increase the height of any 
structure, or permit the growth of any tree, or use his property, not in accordance 
with the regulations prescribed in this ordinance, may apply to the Board of Ad- 
justment for a variance from such regulations. Such variance shall be allowed 
where it is duly found that a literal application or enforcement of the regulations 
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and the relief granted 
would not be contrary to the public interest but do substantial justice and be in 
accordance with the spirit of this ordinance. 

(e) Hazard Marking and Lighting. Any permit or variance granted may, 
if such action is deemed advisable to effectuate the purposes of this ordinance and 
reasonable in the circumstances, be so conditioned as to require the owner of the 

structure or tree in question to permit the (City of . . . ) 

at its own expense, to install, operate, and maintain thereon such markers and 
lights as may be necessary to indicate to flyers the presence of an airport hazard. 

Section 10. Appeals. 

(a) Any person aggrieved, or taxpayer affected, by any decision of the 

(administrative officer) made in his administration of this ordinance, 

or any governing body of a political subdivision, (or any joint airport zoning 

board), if of the opinion that a decision of the (administrative officer) 

is an improper application of these regulations of concern to such governing body 
(or board), may appeal to the Board of Adjustment. 

(b) All appeals hereunder must be taken within a reasonable time, as 
provided by the rules of the Board of Adjustment, by filing with the (admin- 
istrative officer) and with the Board, a notice of appeal specifying the 

grounds thereof. The (administrative officer) shall forthwith transmit 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 67 

to the Board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed 
from was taken. 

(c) An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed 

from, unless the . (administrative officer) certifies to the Board, after 

the notice of appeal has been filed with it, that by reason of the facts stated in 
the certificate a stay would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or prop- 
erty. In such case proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by order of the 
Board and on due cause shown. 

(d) The Board shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal, 
give public notice and due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same 
within a reasonable time. Upon the hearing any party may appear in person or by 
agent or by attorney. 

(e) The Board may, in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance, 
reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or modify, the order, requirement, decision, or 
determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision 
or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers 
of the . . (administrative officer) 

Section 11. Board of Adjustment. 

(a) There is hereby created a Board of Adjustment to have and exercise the 
following powers: (1) To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, 

decision, or determination made by the (administrative officer) in the 

enforcement of this ordinance; (2) To hear and decide special exceptions to the 
terms of this ordinance upon which such Board may be required to pass under such 
regulations; (3) To hear and decide specific variances under Section 9(d). 

(b) The Board of Adjustment shall consist of five citizens who have been 

residents in the (city). . . for at least 5 years prior to their appointment. 

Each member shall be appointed by the . . -(city council) and shall serve 

for a term of 3 years and until his successor is duly appointed and qualified. Of 
the members first appointed, one shall be appointed for a term of 1 year, two for 
a term of 2 years and two for a term of 3 years. Members shall be removable by 

the (city council). . for cause after a public hearing. No compensation 

shall be paid the members of the Board, except reimbursement of actual expenses 

incurred in the fulfillment of their duties. The . ___(city clerk) shall act 

as secretary to the Board. 

(c) The Board shall adopt rules for its governance and procedure in 
harmony with the provisions of this ordinance. Meetings of the Board shall be 
held at the call of the Chairman and at such other times as the Board may de- 
termine. The Chairman, or in his absence the acting chairman, may administer 
oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. All hearings of the Board shall be 
public. The Board shall keep minutes of its proceedings showing the vote of each 
member upon each question, or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, 
and shall keep records of its examinations and other official actions, all of which 

shall immediately be filed in the office of the (city clerk). . . and shall be 

a public record. The office of the (city clerk) shall be the office of the 

Board. Upon their appointment the members of the Board shall select a chairman 
to act at the pleasure of the Board. 

(d) The Board shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law 
giving the facts upon which it acted and its legal conclusions from such facts in 
reversing, or affirming, or modifying any order, requirement, decision, or de- 
termination which comes before it under the provisions of this ordinance. 

(e) The concurring vote of a majority of the members of the Board shall 
be sufficient to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or determination of the 

(administrative officer) , or to decide in favor of the applicant on any 

matter upon which it is required to pass under this ordinance, or to effect any 
variation in this ordinance. 



68 AIRPORT ZONING 

Section 12. Judicial Review. 

(a) Any person aggrieved, or taxpayer affected, by any decision of the Board 
of Adjustment, or any governing body of a political subdivision (or any joint 
airport zoning board) which is of the opinion that a decision of the Board of 
Adjustment is illegal, may present to the court a verified peti- 
tion setting forth that the decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying 
the grounds of illegality. Such petition shall be presented to the court within 
thirty days after the decision is filed in the office of the Board. 

(b) Upon presentation of such petition the court may allow a writ of 
certiorari directed to the Board of Adjustment to review such decision of the 
Board. The allowance of the writ shall not stay proceedings upon the decision 
appealed from, but the court may, on application, on notice to the Board and on 
due cause shown, grant a restraining order. 

(c) The Board of Adjustment shall not be required to return the original 
papers acted upon by it, but it shall be sufficient to return certified or sworn copies 
thereof or of such portions thereof as may be called for by the writ. The return 
shall concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show 
the grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be verified. 

(d) The court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set 
aside the decision brought up for review, in whole or in part, and, if need be, 
to order further proceedings by the Board of Adjustment. The findings of fact of 
the Board, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be accepted by the court as 
conclusive, and no objection to a decision of the Board shall be considered by the 
court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Board or, if it was 
not so urged, unless there were reasonable grounds for failing to do so. 

(e) Costs shall not be allowed against the Board, unless it appears to the 
court that it acted with gross negligence, in bad faith, or with malice, in making 
the decision appealed from. 

( f ) In any case where these regulations, although generally reasonable, are 
held by a court to interfere with the use or enjoyment of a particular structure or 
parcel of land to such an extent, or to be so onerous in their application to such 
a structure or parcel of land, as to constitute a taking or deprivation of that 
property in violation of the constitution of this state or the constitution of the 
United States, such holding shall not affect the application of such regulations to 
other structures and parcels of land. 

(This Section on judicial review should conform to the related provisions of 
the enabling statute.) 

Section 13. Penalties. 

Each violation of this ordinance or of any regulation, order, or ruling pro- 
mulgated hereunder shall constitute a misdemeanor and be punishable by a fine of 

not more than $ or imprisonment for not more than 

days or both such fine and imprisonment, and each day a violation continues to 
exist shall constitute a separate offense. 

Section 14. Conflicting Regulations. 

Where this ordinance imposes a greater or more stringent restriction upon 
the use of land than is imposed or required by any other ordinance or regulation, 
the provisions of this ordinance shall govern. 

Section 15. Amendments. 

(Jt may be advisable to include a section specifically describing the procedure 
to be followed in amending the ordinance. The Tucson ordinance provides that 
"amendment or repeal of all or part of this ordinance shall be done in accord with 
the procedure prescribed by law for the adoption, amendment, and repeal of com- 
prehensive zoning regulations.") 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 69 

Section 16. Severability. 

If an}' of the provisions of this ordinance or the application thereof to any 
person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other pro- 
visions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the 
invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance 
are declared to be severable. 

Section 17. Effective Date. 

This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. 

ADOPTED ON THE DAY OF 19 



70 AIRPORT ZONING 



Appendix X 



PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR USE BY MINNESOTA 

MUNICIPALITIES IN CREATING A JOINT 

AIRPORT ZONING BOARD 1 

JOINT AIRPORT ZONING BOARD 

ORDINANCE NO. 2 

AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE . JOINT 

AIRPORT ZONING BOARD AND DEFINING 
ITS POWERS AND DUTIES 

The city 3 council of ordains as follows: 

Section 1. JOINT AIRPORT ZONING BOARD. There is hereby created 

the joint airport zoning board pursuant to Laws 1945, Ch. 303, 

Section 26. The board shall consist of five members 4 as follows: a member of the 
city council and one citizen member, both appointed by the city council ; a member 
of the board of county commissioners of . county and one citi- 
zen member, both appointed by the board ; and one citizen member, who shall act 
as chairman, elected by a majority of the other four members."" Of the members 
first appointed, one appointed by the council, one appointed by the county board, 

and the chairman shall serve for terms ending 6 ; and the other 

two shall be appointed for terms ending 7 . Thereafter the chair- 
man shall serve for a term of one year and other members shall be appointed for 
terms of two years. Both original and successive appointees shall serve until their 
successors are appointed and qualified. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired 
portion of the term by the appropriate appointing body. Members shall serve 
without compensation. The city clerk 8 shall act as secretary of the joint airport 
zoning board but shall not be a member. 

Section 2. POWERS AND DUTIES. The joint airport 

zoning board shall adopt, administer, and enforce airport zoning regulations for 

the airport hazard areas in the vicinity of the Airport 

as provided in Laws 1945, Ch. 303, Section 24 to 36. 

1 Issued by the Department of Aeronautics, State of Minnesota. 

2 County boards may substitute the term "resolution" wherever the term "ordinance" 
appears. The words "board of county commissioners" or "board" should be used in such cases 
instead of "council." 

3 "Village" or "borough" should be substituted throughout the ordinance where appropriate. 

4 If the airport hazard areas are in more than one county, the number of the board members 
should be increased so that there will be two members from each county. For example, if two 
counties are involved this sentence may read somewhat as follows: 

"The board shall consist of seven members as follows: a member of the city council and 
one citizen member, both appointed by the city council; a member of the board of county com- 
missioners of county and one citizen member, both appointed by the 

county board; a member of the board of the county commissioners of county and 

one citizen member, both appointed by the county board; and one citizen member, 

who shall act as chairman, elected by a majority of the other six members." 

5 The law appears to contemplate that the joint airport zoning board will be permanent in 
character since it must adopt and enforce the zoning regulations. The state act does not, however, 
specify the composition of the board in detail, providing only that two members should be ap- 
pointed by each of the participating agencies. Other possibilities may be preferred in some 
communities. For example, the mayor and the chairman of the county board could be made ex 
officio members, or all the members could be appointed from citizens who are not officials. Terms 
may be lengthened or shortened as desired. 

fi The date should be approximately one year after the date of the ordinance. It may be 
desirable, however, to have the date coincide with the beginning of the political year of either 
the county or the municipality. 

7 The date should be one year later than the date inserted in the previous blank. 

h The term "recorder" should be substituted in a few cities. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 71 

Section 3. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. If airport zoning regulations 
proposed by the joint airport zoning board designates an administrative agency of 
the city or county as the administrative agency to administer and enforce such 
regulations, such designation shall be submitted to the city council and the county 
board for approval, which shall be granted by resolution adopted by each body. 9 

Section 4. DATE OF EFFECT. This ordinance shall take effect upon its 
passage and publication. 10 
Passed the Citv Council this day of . 19 



M; 



(SEAL) 
Attest: 



Clerk 
Published in . on . 19- 



9 The aeronautics code provides that, if the administrative agency chosen to enforce the 
zoning regulations is an established agency of the county or city, the selection must be satis- 
factory to the other subdivision. This provision has been included in the ordinance to meet this 
requirement of the law. If desired, the approval may be given in comprehensive fashion in 
advance somewhat as in the following provision: 

"Section 3. Approval is hereby given in advance to the designation in the airport zoning 
regulations adopted by the joint airport zoning board of any administrative agency of either the 
county or the city as the administrative agency to administer and enforce such regulations." 

10 This provision will have to be altered in some cities to meet requirements of home rule 
charters. If the corresponding resolution has not already been passed by the county board, this 
provision may be altered to read somewhat as follows: "This ordinance shall take effect upon 
adoption of a corresponding resolution by the county board." The effective date may be similarly 
altered in the county board resolution if the city has not yet acted when the resolution is adopted. 

11 The term "president" should be substituted in villages and a few cities and the term 
"chairman" should be used in the case of counties. 



72 AIRPORT ZONING 

Appendix XI 

MUNICIPAL AIRPORT LOCATED OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS 

REQUEST TO COUNTY BOARD TO ADOPT AIRPORT 

ZONING REGULATIONS 

Prepared for Use by Minnesota Municipalities 1 

To the Board of County Commissioners of : County: 

The city council of respectfully requests your body 

to [adopt airport zoning regulations] 2 applicable to the hazard areas in the vicinity 

of . . . . . Airport in accordance with the provisions of 

Laws 1945, Ch. 303, Sections 24 to 36. 

Dated at . . __, 19 






Attest: Mavor 



City Clerk 



1 Issued by the Department of Aeronautics, State of Minnesota. 

2 If the council wishes to have the regulations adopted by a joint board, there may be 
substituted for the words between the brackets the following: "join with it in the creation of a 
joint airport zoning board to adopt, administer, and enforce airport zoning regulations." The 
municipality may proceed to zone alone if the county board refuses to join in creation of a 
joint board or if it fails to adopt regulations within sixty days after a request to do so. 






UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 73 

Appendix XII: References 

BOOKS 

Froesch, Charles, and Prokosch, Walther, Airport Planning, pp. 87-88; 114-123. 
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1946. 

Glidden, Horace K., Law, Hervey F., and Cowles, John E., Airports: Design, 
Construction, and Management, Chapters 9 and 16. New York: McGraw- 
Hill, 1946. 

Rhyne, Charles S., Airports and the Courts, Chapter 8, Washington, D.C.: 

National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, 1944. 
Wood, John W., Airports: Some Elements of Design and Future Development, 

Appendix 7, pp. 317-318. New York: Coward-McCann, 1940. 
Hubbard, Henry V., McClintock, Miller, and Williams, Frank B., Airports: Their 

Location, Administration and Legal Basis, pp. 124-131. Harvard City Planning 

Studies, I. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930. 

COURT DECISIONS 

United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 1946 U. S. Av. Rep. 235 
(1946). (It was held that aircraft flights over one's land may constitute a 
taking of his property if they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct 
and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land.) 

Vara Engineering Corp. v. City of Nezvark, 132 N.J.L. 370, 40 A. (2d) 559, 1945 
U. S. Av. Rep. 117 (1945). (Airport zoning regulations were held invalid in 
the absence of an enabling statute.) 

United States v. 357.25 Acres of Land, 55 F. Supp. 461, 1944 U. S. Av. Rep. 36 
(W. D. La., 1944). (An avigation easement over adjacent land to begin at 25 
feet was held to have no value where local zoning regulations prohibited the 
erection of structures thereon in excess of 25 feet in height.) 

Burnham v. Beverly Airways, Inc., 311 Mass. 628, 42 N.E. (2d) 575 (1942). (The 
court indicated by dictum its approval of the enabling statute authorizing 
airport zoning.) 

Mutual Chemical Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1939 U. S. Av. 
Rep. 11 (Cir. Ct. No. 2, Bait., Jan. 25, 1939). (An airport zoning ordinance 
was held invalid where the regulations limited the height of structures to 5 
feet in some areas of the particular tract. The court took the position that 
airport zoning regulations do not promote the general public interest but 
benefit only those who use "air transportation facilities.) 

LAW REVIEW ARTICLES 

Leavitt, I. Martin, "The Landowner Versus the Airport," 50 W. Va. L. Q. 145 
(1947). 

Rhvne, Charles S., "Airport Legislation and Court Decisions," 14 J. Air L. & C. 
"289 (1947). 

"Constitutional Law — Airport Zoning Legislation," 19 Tenn. L. Rev. 858 (1947). 

Hunter, John M., Jr., "The Conflicting Interests of Airport Owner and Nearby 
Property Owner," 11 Law & Contemp. Prob. 539 (1946). 

Noel, Dix W., "Airports and Their Neighbors," 19 Tenn. L. Rev. 563 (1946). 

Smylie, Robert E., "Constitutionality of Federal Airport Zoning," 12 Geo. Wash. 
L. R. 1 (1943). 



74 AIRPORT ZONING 

Grant, I., "Constitutionality of Zoning Laws Enacted to Protect Airport Ap- 
proaches," 13 J. Air L. & C. 272 (1942). 

Hunter, John M., Jr. and Ulman, Lewis H., "Airport Legal Developments of 
Interest to Municipalities — 1941," 13 J. Air L. & C. 116 (1942). 

Lord, Leo C, "Validity of Prospective Airport Zoning," 30 Geo. L. J. 386 (1942). 

Hunter, John M., Jr., "Airport Legal Developments of Interest to Municipalities — 
1940," 12 J. Air L. & C. 148 (1941). 

Rhyne, Charles S., "The Legal Experience of Airports," 11 J. Air L. & C. 297 
(1940). Reprinted as National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, Report 
No. 68. 

Freeman, Lee A., "Municipal Airport ; Protection of Airport Approaches ; Zoning 
as Exercise of Police Power," 10 J. Air L. 424 (1939). 

Grover, Robert L., "The Legal Basis of Municipal Airports," 5 J. Air L. 410 
(1939). 

Rohlfing, Charles C, "The Airport Approach," 4 Air L. Rev. 144 (1933). 

Elliott, Shelden D., "Unobstructed Airport Approaches," 3 J. Air L. 207 (1932). 

Newman, Arthur L., II, "Airports and a Way of Necessitv," 1 Air L. Rev. 
458 (1930). 

MAGAZINE ARTICLES 

Ross, John C, "Airport Test Case," Flying, May, 1948, Vol. 42, No. 5, p. 30. 

"Airport Legal Battles Point to Future Handling Problems," Aviation Week, 
February 9, 1948, Vol. 48, No. 6, p. 36. 

"Hangar-Home Subdivision," American Society of Planning Officials — News 
Letter, December, 1946, Vol. 12, No. 12, p. 99. 

Boochever, George, "Legal Notes on Air Transportation," Air Transportation, 
October, 1946, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 70. 

Challinor, G. Richard, "Kansas City's Zoning Plan," Southern Flight, July, 1946, 
Vol. 26, No. 1, p. 44. 

Williams, Frank B., "Airport Zoning," The American City, Julv, 1946, Vol. 61, 
No. 7, pp. 129-131. 

"Airport Zoning Plan Suggests Attractive and Practical Bases," American Avia- 
tion, July 15, 1946, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 52. 

"Airpark Zoning Plan Set by K. C. Group," Aviation News, July 8, 1946, Vol. 6, 
No. 2, p. 15. 

"Zoning of Municipal Airports in Wisconsin," The Municipality, June, 1946, Vol. 
41, No. 6, p. 125. (Includes Wisconsin model ordinance.) 

Henderson, Cyril McC, "The Zoning of Airports," Tennessee Planner, December, 
1945, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 75-81. 

"Airport Damage to Surrounding Property," American Society of Planning Offi- 
cials—News Letter, December, 1945, Vol. 11, No. 12, p. 98. 

"Some Effects of Air Transportation on the City Plan," Landscape Architecture, 
October, 1945, Vol. 36, No. 1, p. 3. 

"Airport Zoning," National Aeronautics, June, 1945, Vol. 23, No. 6, p. 12. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 75 

Williams, Frank B., "Airport Zoning," The American City, May, 1945, Vol. 60, 
No. 5, p. 137. 

Blucher, W. H., "Airport Zoning Held Illegal," American Society of Planning 
Officials — Nczvs Letter, March, 1945, Vol. 11, No. 3, p. 31. 

Hunter, John M., Jr., "Zone Now to Save Airports and Lives," Airports, Sep- 
tember, 1944, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 30. 

Rhyne, Charles S., "The Law and Airports," Southern City, September, 1944, Vol. 
8, No. 9, pp. 7-8. 

Rhyne, Charles S., "Airports Must Be Properly Zoned," Southern City, August, 
1944, Vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 3-4. 

"Attempted Restrictions on Air Use Present New Airport Problem," Engineering 
News-Record, May, 1944, Vol. 132, No. 20, p. 755. 

"Farmer's Injunction Closes Allentown Airport to United," American Aviation, 
April 15, 1944, Vol. 7, No. 22, pp. 27-28. 

Fabian, Robert H., Cowley, Leonard M., Hart, Gerald T., "Appraising the Right 
of Flight," The Appraisal Journal, January, 1944, Vol. 12, No. 1, p. 9-13; 
April, 1944, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 127-131 ; July, 1944, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 245-252. 

Kelly, Bliss, "Airport Hazards," Flying, September, 1943, Vol. 33, No. 3, p. 51. 

Williams, Frank B. and Bassett, Edward M., "Airport Zoning," The American City, 
February, 1942, Vol. 57, No. 2, p. 105. 

Vogel, Joshua H., "Airport Protection by Zoning and Neighborhood Planning," 
The American City, September 1941, Vol. 56, No. 9, pp. 60-61. 

"Toward Safer Flight," Civil Aeronautics Journal, September, 1941, Vol. 2, No. 
17, pp. 218-219. 

Blucher, W. H., "Airport Zoning," American Society of Planning Officials — 
News Letter, February, 1941, Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 9. 

Bassett, Edward M., "Can the Circle of Land Surrounding an Airport Be Zoned 
Under the Police Power to Regulate Heights of Buildings?" Planning and 
Civic Comment, January-March, 1940, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 9-11. 

Oppermann, Paul P., "Zoning of Airports and Adjacent Land," The Planners' 
Journal, July-August, 1938, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 86. 

Williams, Frank B., "Legal Consideration in the Planning of Airports," The 
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May, 1931, 
Vol. 155, Part II, pp. 43-46. 

PAMPHLETS AND REPORTS 

Hunter, John M., Jr., "Problems of Airport Zoning," paper presented at the An- 
nual Planning Conference of the American Society of Planning Officials in 
New York, N. Y., May 6, 1946. Published by Department of Commerce, Civil 
Aeronautics Administration, Office of Airports. 

Air Transport Association of America, Airline Airport Design Recommendations, 
Part II — Airport Obstructions, Approaches, and Zoning, Washington, D.C. 
(1946). 

Civil Aeronautics Administration, Airport Planning for Urban Areas, Depart- 
ment of Commerce, Washington, D.C, 1945. 



76 AIRPORT ZONING 

American Municipal Association, Report No. 145, Municipalities and Airport 
Zoning, February, 1941. 

Knotts, Howard, "Airport Zoning and Protection of Airport Approaches," Pro- 
ceedings Thirty-Eighth Annual Convention, American Road Builders' Associa- 
tion, 1941, pp. 347-350. 

Mclntire, John A. and Rhyne, Charles S., Airport Approach Protection Materials, 
Model Statute and Ordinance, National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, 
Report No. 59, Feb., 1940. 

Alclntire, John A. and Rhyne, Charles S., Airports and Airplanes and the Legal 
Problems They Create for Cities, National Institute of Municipal Law Offi- 
cers, Report No. 42, April, 1939. 

American Society of Planning Officials and American Municipal Association, The 
Airport Dilemma, pp. 42-43. Chicago: Public Administration Service, Publi- 
cation No. 62, 1938. 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Report of Committee on 
Airport Zoning and Eminent Domain, Air Commerce Bulletin, January, 1931, 
Vol. 2, No. 13, p. 325. 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES 

Civil Aeronautics Administration, Office of Airports, "Selected References on Air- 
port Approach Protection and Rights in Airspace," Department of Commerce, 
Washington, D.C., 1947. 

Shillaber, Caroline, "Airport Zoning: A Selected Bibliography," Landscape Archi- 
tecture, October, 1945, Vol. 36, No. 1, p. 4. 

American Society of Planning Officials, "A Short Selected Bibliography on Air- 
ways and Airport Planning and Protection of Approaches, With Annotations," 
Chicago, 1943. 



(39428) 
















UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 




3 0112 005630444